> W// v*a**-\* *« ™ <4 *** 




► •-NK** * « -wv «*' u *>. •-'sap,* * v r 



'* o» -^'T 









9 v!^nL% *> 



^ ••••" V V 



V •!,•,?* C\ 



°^^-'V "V'^5 



1 .»iiir. ^ , 









V *•••* <r 






r.-lsJX-.X **'**&*+. .S >i&:.. *+~ 



$q* 






,. v-.^-y v*™v v^5*V 






^ v 

* Q. 



OTA. #^ 






°*_ •"* „*° ... . V •••'' , >* 

r. ^ ** •> 









BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 



VIEWS OF THE 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST, 

. THE COMFORTER, AND TRINITY. 
WITH AN APPENDIX 

ON THE 

ATONEMENT. 

■ 

By A, WILBUR. 

Neto ISUttton, IftcirisetJ anti Enlarges. 



BOSTON: 
A. WILLIAMS AND COMPANY. 

135 Washington Street. 
1876. 







Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, 

By ASA WILBUR, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



• 



Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Foundry, 
19 Spring Lane. 



PREFACE. 



The sentiments presented to the Christian 
public in the following little work are not the 
result of hastily or recently adopted conclusions. 
For more than forty years they have existed as 
settled convictions in the authors mind. 

They have been a solace and satisfaction to 
him in no ordinary sense. 

They have been a triumphant support under 
all the vicissitudes of a protracted life ; not, in- 
deed, to the exclusion or disparagement in any 
wise of any one of the great vital Scriptural 
truths essential to true discipleship and practical 
godliness : indeed, he maintains that these fun- 
damental doctrines themselves are more clearly 
seen, and their simplicity and consistency better 
understood and more truly appreciated, from the 
point of view set forth in the following pages, 
than from the usual exposition of them. 

3 



It has seemed to the writer well-nigh unac- 
countable that certain plain teachings of the New 
Testament, as they appear to him, especially many 
from the lips of Christ himself, should be mis- 
applied, and conclusions adopted instead which 
are unnatural, and confessedly shrouded in im- 
penetrable mystery. 

Should the question be asked, Why have not 
these sentiments, these long-cherished convictions, 
been sooner made public ? The reply is, An 
extreme reluctance at the thought of advancing 
doctrines the writer knew would not be fully in 
accord with those of his brethren, with whom he 
has so long and so happily labored to advance 
the kingdom of their common Redeemer. He 
shrunk from exciting their apprehensions and sus- 
picions, which he well knew would be the natural 
result. These, with some minor considerations, 
have hitherto prevented his views from being 
publicly known. It would not be strange if mis- 
conceptions of the course of thought, or, indeed, a 
full sense of the author's meaning, should excite 
opposition. He is aware of the position he has 
taken ; but an assured sense of fidelity to the 
simple teachings of the Saviour of men abundantly 
sustains him as he ventures out of his usual pur- 



suit in life, and commits himself to his Master 
and the public. 

He is conscious that what is brought forward 
in the following treatise is but an outline of what 
might and what ought to be said on the subjects 
treated. 

That the " Spirit of truth," the Comforter, whose 
prerogative it is to "guide into all truth," may 
enlighten and conduct the reader as he contem- 
plates these important subjects, is the prayer of 

The Author. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. PAGB 

STATEMENT OF VIEWS, ...... u 

CHAPTER II. 
PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, .... 19 

CHAPTER III. 

THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL, . . 20 

Sec. I. Examination of John i. 2, . . . .20 

" II. " Proverbs viii. 22-30, . . 31 

" III. " Micah v. 2, . . . .36 

"IV. " Hebrews i. 8, . . . . 38 

CHAPTER IV. 

CHRIST IN HEAVEN AS HUMAN BEFORE THE 

CREATION, 41 

Sec. I. Use of Pronouns " I," "My," "Me," &c, . 41 
" II. The Terms " Set up," &c, signify Commence- 
ment of Existence, . . . . -44 
" III. Psalms ii. 7, 8; Colossians i. 15, &c, . . 45 

" IV. John vi. 62 ; xvi. 28, 50 

" V. John vi. 30, 52 

" VI. Christ's Prayer in John xvii., . . . -55 
" VII. Description of Christ in Revelation, . . 59 

7 



8 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER V. 

PAGE 

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF 

CHRIST? 61 

Sec. I. Christ affirms that all his Works are by the 

Power of the Father, 61 

" II. Retrospective View, ..... 64 

" III. Respecting Arianism, 66 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, . . 70 

Sec. I. Non-personality of the Spirit in the Old 

Testament, . ... . . 70 

" II. The Spirit at Christ's Baptism, ... 77 
" III. Christ during his Ministry the Sole Channel 

of Divine Communication, .... 82 

" IV. Personality of the Spirit, the Comforter, . 83 

" V. Christ's Testimony to the Comforter, . . 87 

" VI. Pentecost, or the Comforter's Advent, . . 93 

CHAPTER VII. 



FURTHER TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE 

COMFORTER, 

Sec. I. John's Trinity, 

" II. Prayer to the Comforter. Analogy of Wind, &c. 

" III. The Three Earthly Witnesses, 

" IV. Combined View of the Six Witnesses, . 

CHAPTER VIII. 



95 

95 
98 
100 
104 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH OF THE 

FOREGOING VIEWS, . . . . .107 

Sec. I. Would the Church be a Loser? . . . 107 

" II. What would the Church gain? . . . 108 

" III. Views of Dr. Watts and others, . . .115 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER IX. 

ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY, 
Sec. I. Point at Issue, .... 
" II. John the Harbinger, and Christ with Nico- 
demus, 

III. John v. 23; vi. 46, 

IV. The Bread from Heaven, 
V. Further Testimony of John 

VI. The First-born, . 

; VII. The Son's Life is of the Father, 

; VIII. The Son's Efficiency that of the Father. 

Formula of Baptism, 

IX. Oneness of Christ with the Father, 

X. Christ subject to the Father, 

XI. Practical View of the Divine and Human in 

Christ, 
XII. Christ's Union with the Father unlike the 
Believer's Union, 



PAGE 

119 
119 

121 
127 
129 
131 
136 
139 

141 

H3 
144 

147 

156 



CHAPTER X. 

CLOSING REMARKS, 161 

Sec. I. Comprehensiveness and Simplicity of the 

Divine Economy, 161 

" II. Certain Views noticed, 169 

" III. Application, ....... 173 

APPENDIX, 175 



THE 

SONSHIP OF CHRIST, 

THE COMFORTER, AND THE TRINITY. 

CHAPTER I. 

STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 

Before any creation, there existed from eternity 
the One almighty, self-existent, omniscient Deity. 

At a period in the existence of this eternal God, 
before any other creative act known to us, he 
brought forth, or begot, a being of the nature, 
powers, and senses, such as he afterwards breathed 
into the body of Adam when he became a " living 
soul." In other words, he begot a perfect human 
soul. 

Thus there were in existence before the creation 
of the world two beings, — one the self-existent 
God, the other the begotten being ; or, as we will 
now call them, Father and Son. Each has his own 
will : these wills being not at variance, but in per- 
fect harmony ; for, in the nature of things, a holy 
being could not beget an unholy. 

ii 



12 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Before this period, God existed as God ; not as 
Father, because there was no Son. The begotten 
being was Son — " the only-begotten Son." 

The next act of the eternal God was to take this 
begotten being into perfect union with himself ; 
in other words, he incorporated this human soul 
into his own being, so that the two beings, with 
their distinct natures and wills, became by this 
union one. Separately they were two, but by this 
union One. A being thus constituted must neces- 
sarily have the nature, faculties, and powers belong- 
ing to each before their union. Thus there was in 
heaven, before the creation, a complex being, divine 
and human, — divine, because one of his component 
parts is the eternal God ; human, because the other 
part is the begotten human soul or Son. 

The nature or manner of this union we do not 
attempt to explain ; but its reality is conceivable, 
and no more mysterious than our own constitution. 
We are composed of spirit and matter, each as 
really unlike the other as deity and humanity ; 
and yet these two, matter and spirit, are so united 
as to constitute one person, yet acting in perfect 
harmony, each retaining its distinctive properties. 
But the manner or nature of this union is inex- 
plicable. Now, as we can conceive of, but cannot 
explain, this union in our own constitution, even 
so we may conceive of, but cannot explain, the 
union of deity and humanity. The fact of the 
union is as reasonable and admissible in the one 
case as in the other. 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 3 

We are now prepared to look at the account of 
the creation ; and we must not lose sight of the 
character of the being who is the Creator. It is 
this complex being, — Father and Son, divine and 
human, i. e., human soul. The begotten Son, of 
himself, had no more power to create than Christ, 
as a mere man on earth, had power to do God's 
works : according to his own declaration, "The Son 
can do nothing of himself " (John v. 19). But, being 
one with the Almighty, by and with His power he 
could create. Hence the harmony of the two 
following passages : "In the beginning God created 
the heaven and the earth." " By him [Christ] 
were all things created that are in heaven and that 
are in earth " (Gen. i. 1 ; Col. i. 16). It was proper, 
therefore, to say God created and the Son created ; 
because they were united as one in the work of 
creation, the Father operating with and in the 
Son, and the Son by and through the power of the 
Father. 

On this principle Jesus when on earth per- 
formed his miracles. He said to the leprous man, 
" I will ; be thou clean." There is no more mystery 
in this case than in that of- the creation. All will 
see that it as really required divine power to heal 
the leper as to produce the light, or gather the 
waters together ; yet it is properly said that Christ 
healed the leper, though in reality God the Father 
performed the cure through his Son, according to 
the words of Jesus, " The Father that dwelleth in 
me, he doeth the works." 



14 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

After the material world was created, and the 
grand crowning work of the creation was to be 
accomplished, we hear for the first time a com- 
munication between the two wills, or two beings, 
Father and Son, in heaven. It runs thus : " Let 
tis make man in our image, after our likeness ; " 
that is, as we understand it, " Let us make a being 
of the same nature, faculties, and senses, and of 
the same purity and holiness, as the begotten being 
which forms a part of Ourself." The being that 
was to inhabit the earthly body was to be in all 
respects " in the image and likeness " of the com- 
plex Creator, Father and Son. And what a perfect 
image of the Creator was man when he came from 
the hands of his Maker, in whom two natures are 
mysteriously united, so that one does not act 
without the other, the superior nature leading. 

First, a tenement formed from the earth was 
prepared, adapted to the being who should inhabit 
it, in which he might develop and exercise him- 
self in his appointed sphere. Into this tenement 
God then breathed the breath of life, and man 
became a living soul ; not, however, another begot- 
ten Son united to the Father ; for God, in com- 
pany with the pre-existing Son, created this human 
soul in the likeness of the one united to himself. 
It matters not which word is used — " breathed," 
" created," or " said : " the work was the act of this 
complex being. All must see that the "breathing" 
needed an accompanying divine power ; for not 
only was a soul imparted, but animal life was given, 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 5 

and the earthly body made complete with its 
almost innumerable functions and powers. 

Thus man was formed and placed on earth by 
the same power and the same beings (for the word 
" us " is used by them) that formed whatever else 
was created. 

Hence there was placed on earth a being fitly 
emblematical of his Creator ; the spirit of the man 
corresponding to the deity of the Creator, the body 
corresponding to the begotten human soul, and 
the two natures in each case so united as to make 
one. In speaking of them, we call the Being in 
heaven " God," " Lord God," " God of Jacob," " God 
of Israel," and so on, each name including both 
natures acting together. The being on earth we 
call " man," the term also including the two natures 
of which he is composed acting together ; and, 
as the spirit of man never communicates except 
through the organs of the body, the inferior part 
acting with it, so the eternal Deity communicates 
with man only by and through the begotten human 
Son, the inferior part united with him. 

In this arrangement we see wisely established, 
before man was placed on earth, a channel or 
medium of communication between God in heaven 
and man on earth ; a being of the same species 
and nature as the human race, whose natural sym- 
pathies would be with his brother on earth, and so 
united to the eternal God that the divine sympa- 
thies, also, through him, could flow to man even 
in his fallen state. Apart from such union, it is 



1 6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

difficult to see how God could have shown more 
sympathy towards rebellious man than towards 
rebellious angels. 

With this agree the words of the Lamb of God : 
" I am the way ; " and, " No man cometh unto the 
Father but by me " (John xiv. 6). In this manner 
did this complex Being act, and communicate with 
man during the ages of the Old Testament. 

After the lapse of about four thousand years from 
the creation of Adam, this begotten being, human 
soul, or Son, — by whichever term expressed, — 
who had dwelt " in the bosom of the Father," in 
happy union with him, from before the foundation 
of the world, and "by whom God created all 
things," left his celestial abode, and came down to 
earth ; where by the divine energy, through the 
Virgin Mary, a body was prepared for him. In 
this body, according to its capacity, he developed 
his knowledge and wisdom. In leaving heaven, 
however, the Son did not cease to be united with 
his Father ; nor was this union less perfect on 
earth than it had been in heaven. 

But, " though he was rich, he became poor : " 
that is, he was divested of the glory and majesty 
which he had with his Father in heaven. This 
divesting was necessary, that he might appear as a 
servant, become familiar with his brother man. in 
his fallen state, dwell with him as one of them, 
and " be tempted in all points like as we are, yet 
without sin." 

And now we have before us Christ as he was in 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. IJ 

Palestine, — truly God and truly man. Being, as to 
his soul, the " beginning of the creation of God," 
and as to his body, being " begotten of the Holy 
Ghost," he is in a twofold sense " the Son of God." 
Born of a woman as other men, he was placed by 
birth " under the law," and was naturally " the Son 
of man." And since, as before stated, he is so 
united to God that he and his Father are One, 
we have God and man, divinity and humanity, 
complete in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus 
we see the divinity of the eternal God is the divin- 
ity of the Son. 

Are the above views of the origin of the divinity 
and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ in accord- 
ance with the word of God ? are they taught in that 
sacred volume? If so, they are true, and must 
ultimately prevail, all conflicting theories on the 
subject, ancient or modern, to the contrary not- 
withstanding. 

It is not at all improbable that many, on reading 
thus far, will cast this little treatise aside, denoun- 
cing it as heretical, and unworthy of further atten- 
tion. They have been taught, and believe, that 
the divinity of Christ, his sonship, &c, are a mys- 
tery, utterly incomprehensible by human reason. 
Multitudes of Christ's children, learned and un- 
learned, past and present, have stilled their inquiries 
with this conclusion. 

Would it not be well that the Christian reader 
should carefully examine the subject. before pro- 

2 



1 8 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

nouncing judgment ? The Bereans "searched the 
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so ; " 
and all know the beneficial result. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the 
Scriptures, let us quote the language of one of our 
theological professors, whose sentiments we most 
heartily adopt. 

" Our fundamental principle is, that the Scrip- 
tures alone are our guide in all matters of fait Ji 
and practice. To this principle we should unhesi- 
tatingly conform, whatever may be the result. We 
should not shrink from its application, even if it 
should overturn customs which have been most ven- 
erated by us, a7id should lead us to act contrary to 
all the teachings of our fathers." — Bib. Sacra, p. 
29, vol. 30. 

On just this " fundamental principle " we have 
endeavored to study the Scriptures ; and it has 
constrained us to adopt the doctrines herein pre- 
sented. If the reader will adhere to this principle in 
examining these subjects, he can hardly judge amiss. 

Once more : in the examination of Scripture now 
to be made, the following rule of interpretation 
may, also, well be recommended. 

" We should never have recurrence to a strained or 
metaphysical sense, but when we know, that, either 
from the nature of the thing, or from some other 
revelation of Scripture, it will not admit of a proper 
one. We must understand words in their proper 
and natural sense, when there is no apparent reason 
for a figure." 



PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. 19 

CHAPTER II. 
PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. 

We now take up the sacred volume, confidently 
believing that the writers thereof wrote as they 
were moved by the Holy Spirit ; and we will look 
to the same Guide to direct us in our examina- 
tions. 

That Christ, as the Son of God, did exist before 
his incarnation, is admitted by all or nearly all 
evangelical Christians. One would suppose that 
the assertion of Christ, "Before Abraham was, I 
am" (John viii. 50), would be decisive, and con- 
vince the most scrupulous of the fact. He evi- 
dently intended to convey the idea that he existed 
before the days of Abraham. He was so under- 
stood. If he thus intended, and did not so exist, 
he was either a lunatic or guilty of- falsehood ; and 
the Jews were right in rejecting him. But we 
" believe and are sure that he was the Christ, the 
son of the living God," and that he did exist before 
Abraham. 

Again he says (John xvii. 5), " Now, O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory 
which I had with thee before the world was." 
Here Jesus appeals to the Almighty God as to the 
truth that he was with Him before the creation. Paul 
taught the same to several of the churches. To 



20 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the Colossians he says (chap. i. 17), "He was be- 
fore all things," &c. Cn this point we need not 
quote further, as it is not generally disputed by 
evangelical believers. 



CHAPTER III. 
THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 

Sec. I. — Examination of John i. 2. 

Having treated of the Pre-existence of Christ, 
the question now is, In what character did he exist? 
The usual answer is, As the divine, eternal Son of 
God ; or perhaps as the second person in the divine 
Trinity. 

In answering this question, our first point will be 
to show that the Scriptures chiefly relied on as 
proof of the eternal existence of the Word do not 
sustain that doctrine ; but that many of them, as 
well as others, fully show that his existence as Son 
had a beginning. 

But, before proceeding further, let us ask our- 
selves, Can we lay aside preconceived views in ex- 
amining this subject, and take the sacred volume 
as addressed to us personally, from our heavenly 
Father, for the purpose of teaching us his will and 
the principles of his kingdom ? Only in this spirit 
can we hope to succeed in our inquiries after 
truth. 






THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 21 

We can be sure of getting correct information 
only when willing to surrender, if needful, any 
previously formed doctrinal opinions. No person 
finds Christ to be a Saviour to himself personally, 
until he makes a complete surrender of all things 
else. Even so in learning " the things of Christ." 
However wise, we must become " fools " as to our 
wisdom, for Christ's sake. We must accept the in- 
spired word as a child would take a lesson from his 
father ; and seek the enlightening aid of the Com- 
forter, the Holy Spirit, who, the Saviour promised, 
should " guide us into all truth.'' 

As the venerable John Brown of Haddington 
said, on completing his Family Bible, " I have 
learned more of the true meaning of the Bible on 
my knees before God, than from all the commen- 
taries I ever consulted." 

Bearing in mind the rules of interpretation which 
have been laid down, it may be shown that the 
commonly received doctrine of an eternal divine 
Sonship has no sanction in the Bible. It is of 
human origin; and the Son, as before said, must 
be a distinct, derived being. 

The first eighteen verses of John's Gospel are 
much relied on to prove the eternity of the Word, 
or Son, particularly the first two, commencing 
thus : " In the beginning was the Word," &c. Con- 
siderable labor has been expended to show that this 
beginning refers to the commencement of all God's 
operations ; or that if it refers to the creation, then 
all before that period must be eternal ; and that as 



22 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the Word was with God at that period, he must 
have been with Him from eternity. 

That God had performed acts before he created 
this world very few doubt. One act only has been 
revealed, namely, the producing or begetting of him 
who sent the messages to the Seven Churches of 
Asia. He tells us " he was the beginning of the 
creation of God." Is it not like beating the air to 
refer to a beginning of which there is no revelation, 
and of which there can be no conception ? A 
11 beginning in eternity," or belonging to eternity, — 
where is it ? 

It is observable that John begins his history of 
Christ with the same words with which Moses 
commenced his account of the creation of the 
world : " in the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth." Has this word a different meaning 
when used by John than when used by Moses ? 
What do we know of anything begun, before the 
commencement of the creation of the world, with 
the single exception as above ? 

Placing these two narratives side by side, do 
they not teach that there was a period in God's 
existence when he commenced the creation of the 
world, and that the Word, or Son, was with him at 
that period ? Do they teach anything beyond that 
period ? 

John does not say the Word was, or was not eter- 
nal. All he affirms is, that the Word was with 
God at a certain period. One may infer the Word 
had been eternally with Him, another that he was 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 23 

with Him only just before the commencement of 
the creation ; both are inferences, but neither 
proof. 

But, says one, " John's testimony was, ' He was 
God ; ' and that of itself proves he was eternal.'' 
The Son is called God in several instances, and 
he was truly God — to which point reference will 
be had hereafter, under another head. It will be 
seen that Moses' and John's narratives harmonize 
in recognizing a duality of persons present on the 
occasion spoken of. Moses says, as has been 
noted, "And God said, Let us make man," show- 
ing that there were two, at least, employed in the 
formation of man. It is noticeable that the He- 
brew word, here translated " God," is plural, while 
the verb is in the singular. Does not this indicate 
that there were two in the agency, while the act 
was one ? This idea is abundantly supported by 
other Scriptures. Paul wrote to the Ephesians : 
" God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." 
John supports the same idea when he says, " And 
the Word was with God," showing there were two ; 
otherwise it could not properly be said that one was 
with another. 

We see, then, that this passage, so much relied on 
in the hands of those who believe in the eternity 
of the Son, proves nothing more than that the Son 
existed, and was with God at the beginning of 
creation. This accords with the view expressed 
on page n. 

The idea that all before the "beginning" of 



24 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

which John speaks must be eternal, has so long 
prevailed in the evangelical Church, that if one 
should inquire of a theologian whether there is 
Scripture evidence of the eternity of the Son of 
God, he would with much assurance refer to the 
first two verses of John's Gospel as settling the 
question. Should the authority of such a render- 
ing be disputed, he would call to his support the 
great body of writers of the evangelical Church on 
the subject, from the early fathers down to the 
present day. 

Commentators generally, following each other's 
sentiments, if not words, in their expositions on 
these verses, become so fixed in the belief that 
this passage supports the doctrine in question, 
that they unhesitatingly assert it as a fact. We 
will quote some modern writers in confirmation 
of this statement. 

Dr. John Gill, a learned English commentator, 
says of the second verse, "This is a repetition of 
what is before said, and is made to show the eter- 
nity of Christ ; and so proves not only the eternal 
existence, but his eternal existence with his Father, 
and also his eternal deity.'' Does the text warrant 
such a statement ? 

Matthew Henry says, in his remarks on this 
Scripture (and we would say that no writer we 
have known appears so much at home in the 
Bible as he), " The beginning of time, in which 
all creatures were produced and brought into be- 
ing, found this eternal Word in being." Note, it is 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 2$ 

Mr. Henry, and not the apostle, who calls the Word 
eternal. He adds, " He that was in the beginning 
never began." Mark this logic. Was there not a 
period in God's existence when he began to create 
the world? Did not God exist before he began 
this or any other creation ? Could not the Word 
have been begotten at some period prior to the 
commencement of the creation ? If Mr. Henry 
means any other beginning than the creation of 
our world, we cannot follow him, for we know of 
no other beginning except the Son himself, who 
tells us he was " the beginning of creation " (Rev. 
iii. 14). 

Mr. Henry again says, on verse 2, " The same, 
the very same that we believe in and preach, was 
in the beginning with God : that is, he was from 
eternity!' 

So says Mr. Henry ; but is it in the text ? 
Again : " The history of man's redemption . . . was 
hid in God before all worlds ; " and he quotes 
Eph. iii. 9. The common translation reads thus : 
" The mystery which from the beginning of the 
world [not ' all worlds '] hath been hid in God, who 
created all things by Jesus Christ." Another 
translation which we have consulted reads, " from 
ages has been hidden," &c. Query : What ages 
before the world was created ? 

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his commentary on this 
passage, speaks thus : " Nothing could exceed time 
but an immeasurable, incomprehensible eternity. 
Time began when the creation was called forth into 



26 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

existence by the Word himself: and in the begin- 
ning the Word was ; that is, from all eternity? 
Note, it is Dr. Scott who says "from all eter- 
nity." 

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comments, says, " What 
was before creation must be eternal : therefore 
Jesus, who was 'before all things/ and who made 
all things, must necessarily be the eternal God " 
(the Italicizing is ours). 

These writers are selected because so well 
known and highly esteemed for piety and biblical 
knowledge. 

Now, who would suppose that men so pious, de- 
votional, and biblically learned could have drawn 
such deductions from these two verses, asserting 
them as facts, even misquoting Scripture to sup- 
port a preconceived doctrine ? But so it is ; and 
no doubt they thought they were rendering ser- 
vice to the kingdom of Christ. Let the reader turn 
to these two verses, and see if there is a word or 
hint concerning an eternity in them. 

It will be seen, the supposed proof for the eter- 
nity of the Son, drawn from the passage cited, 
rests on the assumption that whatever existed 
prior to the creation must be eternal. This is the 
only fair deduction we can make from these decla- 
rations. Now, does the narrative of Moses or of 
John express or imply such an idea ? Was not 
Moses speaking simply of the creation of our 
world ? Does any one who reads his history 
imagine he had any thought of what might have 






THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 2>] 

been previously created. His object was to record 
the facts of the creation of the material world ; 
saying nothing, hinting nothing, concerning the 
origin of the Son of God ; that was left for in- 
spired writers of later days. Likewise with refer- 
ence to the " beginning " of which John speaks : 
would any reader naturally, without prepossession, 
suppose anything intended by his word "begin- 
ning," other than that of which Moses had written ? 
A man can draw such inferences as he chooses ; 
but to assert an inference as a fact, and then de- 
duce proof from it, is a course of reasoning we are 
unable to follow. 

Let us now read the remainder of the verse : 
" and the Word was God." It will be remembered 
that in the second paragraph of the Statement of 
Views on page 12 the position is taken that God 
united the 'begotten Son to himself in such a way 
that the two became one. Assume, for the pres- 
ent, the correctness of this position with regard to 
the Father and the Logos or Son. The reality of 
this union will be considered hereafter. 

If, then, the Logos or Word be a derived being, 
and if the Father took him into union with him- 
self, it would be in accordance with John's use of 
language to call him God, on the ground of this 
union. In the fourteenth verse of this chapter 
John says, " And the Word was made flesh, and 
dwelt among us." No one from this statement 
supposes John to mean that the Word, who " was 
with God, and was God," was transformed into 



28 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

human flesh. All understand that " he was made 
flesh " by being united to flesh, so that he and 
flesh became one by such union. Was it more 
singular for John to say that the begotten Son, 
united to God his Father, was God, than that he 
should say he became flesh because he was united 
to flesh ? But John adds, " And we beheld his 
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the 
Father." 

What was this glory ? And to what does John 
refer when he says, " as of the only-begotten of 
the Father " ? Is the reference to the physical body 
of Christ ? True, that body was begotten of God ; 
but what glory was there of his mere body, more 
than of the body of another man ? Was it not 
the glory of the Father manifesting himself 
through the man Jesus, soul and body, that the 
apostles saw ? And this is according to Christ's 
words, " He that hath seen me hath seen the 
Father " (John xiv. 9). No one had seen the 
Father in any way but by his works which he had 
wrought in and by his Son. John uses similar 
language in his first Epistle, i. 1,2: " That which 
was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the 
Word of life (for the life was manifested, and we 
have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you 
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and 
was manifested unto us)." 

It is evident that John had never seen, heard, 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 20, 

or handled anything of Christ except his human 
bod^, which of itself was merely flesh, blood, and 
bones ; and yet he says that he had seen, &c, 
the "Word of life," and "the eternal life which 
was with the Father, and was manifested unto 
us." 

Here, then, we see his familiar manner of ex- 
pression. What he had seen, heard, and handled 
could refer to one part only of Christ — his body ; 
and in this he is not misunderstood. Nearly all 
agree that that body which the apostle saw and 
handled was so united to the soul, and this soul 
and body were so united to God, that all three by 
this union became one person. We have thus three 
distinct natures joined in one person ; and, conse- 
quently, language applicable to any one of the three 
natures may include the whole person, — body, soul, 
and God. 

If, then, the derived Son was united to God as 
body is to soul, would it be more improper or un- 
natural for John to say that the " Word was God," 
than for him to say that "we have seen, handled, 
&c, the Word of life " ? Truly, the Word or Son 
was with God, and was God ; and the term " Christ," 
as we understand it, includes all the three natures 
united in one. 

In what respect does the language and meaning 
of John differ from ours ? We say " the Word was 
God," in precisely the same manner in which John 
said he " was God," and " was made flesh : " i. e., 
by union with each. If we could once get these 



30 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ideas clearly into our minds, together with the fact 
that he and the Father were one in the only pos- 
sible way in which deity and humanity can be one 
(that is, by union), then the first eighteen verses 
of John's Gospel, and the first two verses of his 
Epistle, would appear clear, natural, and rational. 
John seems to have had a much clearer knowl- 
edge of the origin, nature, and character of Christ, 
and the object of his errand into our world, than 
either of the other evangelists, or even Paul, who 
was so well instructed in the things of God's king- 
dom ; and he might well have this superiority, 
after his most sublime interview with Christ, and 
the revelation which he received from him in the 
desolate island. 

The Adversary thought that he had shut John 
out of the world, and put him quite beyond the 
power of further usefulness to the cause of truth, 
when he had him banished to that lonely island : 
but, as always in his onsets on Christ's kingdom, 
his work recoiled with double force on his own 
head ; for in what spot on the face of the earth could 
this apostle have been placed, where, all things con- 
sidered, he would have been so useful to the cause 
of Christ? 

Let the reader now judge whether there is any 
evidence of the eternity of the Son in these first 
verses of John's Gospel. Writers have, indeed, as 
already said, adduced them as conclusive proof of 
this doctrine. We think, however, when other pas- 
sages shall have been considered, in another place, 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 3 1 

it will yet more plainly appear that such a view is 
wholly untenable. 

It is evident that John's whole object, in these 
first eighteen verses, is to explain the character of 
Christ ; and in the fourteenth and eighteenth verses 
he makes the " Word " of the first verse " the only- 
begotten Son." 

Sec. II.— Proverbs viii. 22-30. 

We next invite attention to Prov. viii. 22-30. 
As these verses are much to the point, and are 
often referred to as proving the eternal existence 
of the Son, we quote them entire. 

" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his 
way, before his works of old. I was set up from 
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth 
was. When there were no depths, I was brought 
forth ; when there were no fountains abounding 
with water. Before the mountains were settled, 
before the hills was I brought forth : while as yet 
he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the 
highest part of the dust of the world. When he 
prepared the heavens I was there : when he set 
a compass upon the face of the depth : when he 
established the clouds above: when he strength- 
ened the fountains of the deep : when he gave to 
the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass 
his commandment : when he appointed the foun- 
dations of the earth : then I was by him, as one 
brought up with him : and I was daily his delight, 
rejoicing always before him." 



32 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

The person here represented as speaking is wis- 
dom personified : but the language is generally, and 
doubtless correctly, referred to the Messiah. In 
this view, the passage is often regarded as proof of 
his existence as Son from eternity. The principal 
argument for that view is drawn from the use of 
the word " everlasting " in the clause, " I was set 
up from everlasting." We are told that the word 
thus translated means " eternal," or " eternity," and 
that the corresponding Greek word in the New 
Testament has the same signification. Well, admit 
this : they are mostly so translated in the common 
version of both the Old and New Testaments, es- 
pecially in the marginal readings. 

But it is well known that words often have mean- 
ings corresponding to the beings or objects to 
which they are applied. When this word refers 
to God, or any of his attributes, or to the future 
life, it undoubtedly means eternal. In such cases, 
no limit or qualification is either expressed or im- 
plied. 

But, when it relates to hills (as in Gen. xlix. 26), 
or to the Levitical priesthood (as in Ex. xl. 15), or 
to mountains (as in Hab. iii. 6), it cannot mean 
eternal, but simply as long as the thing in question 
lasts. 

The verse last referred to ends thus : " His ways 
are everlasting." Here, its application being to 
God, the word denotes "eternal." Thus in this 
one verse the word has two significations: "eter- 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 33 

nal," as applied to Deity ; and a limitation of exist- 
ence, as applied to mountains. 

But let us look a little more closely at the pas- 
sage in Proverbs. " The Lord [Jehovah] possessed 
me in the beginning of his way." Does not this 
suggest the idea of two beings, — a superior and 
an inferior, one " possessing " the other ? Does it 
not imply that the Father possessed the Son ? But 
it is asserted that the Father and the Son are not 
only equal, but innately " the same in essence ; " if 
so, would it not be just as proper to say that the 
Son possessed the Father, as that the Father pos- 
sessed the Son ? 

The expression, " in the beginning of his way," 
like the similar language of Moses and John in the 
commencement of their narratives, evidently refers 
to the work of creation. What way of God before 
the creation did Solomon know of ? and it is worthy 
of note, that, more than a thousand years before 
John wrote, Solomon uses the same phraseology in 
reference to the same period, and also to the same 
person, — the Son of God. It was the period be- 
fore the creation of the world ; and it seems clear 
that he meant to say, " Jehovah possessed me be- 
fore the world was created." And there is no rea- 
sonable doubt that this is John's meaning in his 
gospel. But Solomon shows what " way " he means 
in the following verse : " I was set up from ever- 
lasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was! y 

Here the word " everlasting " is explained, and 
3 



34 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

its meaning fixed as referring to a period before 
the creation. To prevent any misunderstanding, 
it is added, "or ever the earth was." The twenty- 
third verse is nearly a repetition of the twenty- 
second, as to the time when the Father pos- 
sessed the Son : it only adds, " I was set up," 
to show that his being had a commencement. 
Is it asked, " When ? " The answer is, " Or ever 
the earth was ; " i. e., before the creation of the 
world. 

Can any one read these two verses, and reason- 
ably draw from them any other than the above 
conclusion ? The following verses seem to be 
confirmatory : verse 24, " When there were no 
depths, I was brought forth ;" verse 25, "Before 
the mountains, before the hills was I brought forth." 
If this " I " referred to an eternal, divine Son, could 
such expressions as " I was set up," " I was brought 
forth," " Before the hills was I brought forth," be 
applicable to him ? What consistency would there 
be in the application of such expressions by Deity 
to Deity, — " Jehovah possessed me in the begin- 
ning of his way," " Before the hills was I brought 
forth," " I was set up " ? All will at once see their 
inappropriateness. 

The remaining verses in the quotation from 
Proverbs are mostly confirmatory repetitions of 
those on which we have commented. They refer 
to the period when the Son existed with the Father. 
This period is marked quite emphatically in the 
thirtieth verse, "Then I was by him, as one brought 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 35 

up with him : and I was daily his delight, rejoicing 
always before him." 

This word " then " points unmistakably to the 
period before described as "in the beginning of 
his way," " before his works of old," " from ever- 
lasting" (as that word is qualified), "from the 
beginning, or ever the earth was " (that is, before 
the creation, of which a sketch is given) ; and the 
whole text depicts a dutiful Son in intercourse with 
a loving Father, and harmonizes with all Christ's 
language in relation to his Father. 

Take, now, these nine verses together, and what 
do they affirm ? Is it not this : that the person 
described as speaking "was set up," "brought 
forth," or began his existence, before the heavens 
and the earth were created ? 

He "was daily his delight, rejoicing always 
before him ; " i. e., as we understand it, happy in 
his presence. 

It seems as if the Son of God here takes special 
pains to prevent misunderstanding as to his existence 
and character. As was remarked on the passages 
from John's Gospel, let the reader clearly appre- 
hend the ideas which have been advanced, whether 
accepting them or not, and he will see how natu- 
rally the whole passage reads. There is but one 
word, " everlasting," that seems to favor the idea 
of existence from eternity; and that word may 
properly be taken in its limited sense. Yet our 
ablest theological writers are wont to adduce this 
passage as proving the eternity of the Son. It is 



36 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

difficult to account for this only on the power of 
preconceived opinion. 

Let us suppose that the Son was a derived being, 
united to the Father, and attempted to convey to 
Solomon an idea of his origin and state before the 
creation : should we not expect him to say just 
what Solomon here wrote ? His union with the 
Father is not, indeed, so positively expressed as 
after his descent to earth ; yet the language is 
adapted to the purpose. Thus viewed, the pas- 
sage makes good sense ; but does it so appear 
on the other scheme ? Can we conceive of God as 
thus "possessed," "set up," "brought forth," the 
delight of Jehovah, and "rejoicing always before 
him " ? 

Evidently, this must be another being, and in 
himself alone less than God. 

Sec. III. — Examination of Micah v. 2. 

The second verse of Micah (V th ) is also held to 
indubitably teach the eternity of the Son. The 
first part of this verse refers exclusively to the 
advent of the Messiah, even fixing the place of his 
nativity. The verse closes thus : " Whose goings 
forth have been from of old, from everlasting." 
The Hebrew word here translated " from everlast- 
ing," in the margin reads " the days of eternity." 
It has been shown that the word everlasting does 
not always mean eternal. In Amos ix. 1 1 it will be 
seen the same Hebrew word above translated 
" everlasting," and " days of eternity," is trans- 






THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 2>7 

lated "days of old," which cannot refer to eter- 
nity. 

On first reading these two last lines of the verse 
in Micah, with the mind fully fixed in the doctrine 
of the eternity of the Son, and influenced by the 
marginal reading, this passage would seem to be a 
confirmation of that view. In the translation of 
any language there are words which the translator 
can determine the meaning of only by the context. 
So with this passage : on close examination, the 
idea of eternity entirely disappears, as it does in all 
the passages held to support the eternity of the Son. 

The " everlasting," here — and with it the margi- 
nal reading — stands synonymous with his " goings 
forth have been from of old ; " (" have been " being 
inserted.) What goings forth of the Messiah, 
before the creation of the world, could the prophet, 
or any one else, have in mind ? Of the Messiah 
the first we hear is his being begotten. We hear 
his Father say, " Thou art my Son, this day have 
I begotten thee " (Ps. ii. 7). Agreeably to this he 
tells us he is the first of God's creation. The first 
we hear of his goings forth, or his doings, is, he is 
with his Father in the creation. If Micah had 
said, " Who was from of old, even from everlasting, 
or from eternity," there would be reason in pre- 
senting this passage as proving the eternity of the 
Son ; but this is not the text. As therefore the 
expression " goings forth " necessarily implies 
action, and we have no account of any action of 
the Son prior to the creation, the " everlasting " 



38 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

here comes into the position which the same word 
holds in Prov. viii. 23, and Amos ix. 11. The 
simple meaning of the prophet evidently is, " His 
goings forth are from of old," or " among the 
ancients." The expression " of old " is a familiar 
one in the Old Testament, occurring over forty 
times ; and in all but two or three it unmistakably 
refers to ancient times, persons, or things. 

Again, if the prophet intended " eternity " by 
the word rendered " everlasting," why does he 
insert " days " ? This word, though not in the 
English, is in the original. 

It is believed this is the only place in the Bible 
where the word days is made to apply to eternity. 
The original translators evidently saw a difficulty 
of giving the exact sense here, as in Amos ix. 11. 
It would be a repetition of " goings forth of old ; " 
hence they used a term that might mean " of old," 
or " eternal," should the context in the original so 
require. 

Further, the marginal reading " days of eternity " 
cannot be correct, since it conflicts with many 
other passages, such as, " Thou art my Son, this 
day have I begotten thee ; " " The beginning of the 
creation of God ; " " The First-born of every crea- 
ture ; " &c. 

Sec. IV. — Examination of Hebrews i. 8. 

We will glance at one more passage often confi- 
dently urged as evidence of the eternity of the Son, 
and then leave this side of the question. 



THE WORD, OR LOGOS, NOT ETERNAL. 39 

Heb. i. 8 : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy 
throne, O God, is for ever and ever." In this 
chapter, the writer shows the Christian Jews the 
superiority of the Son of God above all other 
created beings. To do this he quotes from several 
psalms the declarations of the Father to or con- 
cerning the Son, all spoken many years before the 
incarnation ; some of them were addressed to him 
even before the creation. In every one of these 
quotations, either in this chapter, or in the psalm 
from which it is taken, carefully studied with its 
context, the Son, as such, appears in a subordinate 
character to his Father. We could go into an 
analysis of them, if needed. At present we will 
only notice the one above, " Thy throne, O God," 
&c. 

This verse, standing by itself, may indeed seem 
to be decisive. The Father addresses the Son as 
" God." " Surely," says one, " if the Son is God, 
he must be in himself God." Read, however, the 
verse following : there it is declared that the Father 
anointed this Son, whom he calls God, "above his 
fellows." Observe, above his fellows, that is, his 
equals. And who could have been his equals, were 
he an eternal Son ? 

This expression "anointing," without question, 
was in accordance with the ceremony, in the Mosaic 
economy, of inducting the high-priest, and some- 
times kings and prophets, into office by anointing 
them with the holy oil. 

When thus anointed, they were consecrated, 



40 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

and authorized to act in their respective offices ; 
and when utensils or other things were thus 
anointed, they were set apart exclusively to holy 
purposes. 

Note, it is God's holy oil with which the Son is 
said to have been anointed. For the preparation 
of that oil, and the care with which it was guarded 
from being used for any common purpose, or imi- 
tated, the reader is referred to Ex. xxx. 23-33 
inclusive. Does not this anointing most fitly em- 
blematize the anointing of the Son ? When God 
took him into union with himself, did he not thus 
anoint him with his own spirit " without measure " ? 
And was he not thus " filled with all the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily " ? And being thus spiritually 
anointed, he is properly inducted into the spiritual 
offices of priest, prophet, and king. And possess- 
ing all that the Father had, which of course in- 
cluded all the divine attributes and powers, was it 
not as proper that his Father should call him God 
as that John, under the influence of the divine 
Spirit, should call him God ? Yes, he was God, 
not inherently, but by union ; and it was right that 
his Father should so call him, and that John and 
Thomas should call him God ; and it would be 
right, and it is the duty of all the inhabitants of the 
earth, to so call him, and to worship him, " as over 
all, God blessed forever." 

Other passages often adduced as proving the 
eternal existence of Christ as Son, if closely ex- 
amined according to the rules of interpretation 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 41 

referred to in the beginning of this volume, will be 
found to prove only that Christ as Son existed 
before the creation. 

The so-called Scriptural idea of the Son's eternal 
existence, or an eternal second person in the God- 
head, we are compelled to regard as wholly unsus- 
tained. We do not find a single passage which, 
when candidly examined, supports it. If, now, it 
can be plainly shown that the Son's existence had 
a beginning, this would seem to settle the question. 



CHAPTER IV. 

CHRIST IN HEAVEN AS HUMAN BEFORE THE 
CREATION. 

Sec. L— Use of Pronouns "I" "My" "Me" &c. 

The consideration, then, to which attention is 
now invited, is that Christ existed as a human 
being before the creation of the world. 

In doing this we must examine his use of the 
pronouns " I " and " me," and other words by which 
he describes himself. In his general appearance 
we suppose him to have been like other men. He 
was of the Hebrew nation, and of the tribe of Judah. 
He could trace his genealogy like other Jews. He 
had a legal father, a natural mother, brothers, and 
sisters, as others had. He was born of a woman, 



42 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

was a babe, nourished, and brought up as others ; 
was a boy, a lad, a young man, learned a trade, 
worked at it for a living, and became a man like 
other men, except that in all these stages of life he 
was perfect and holy. 

If asked how we know that he was perfect and 
holy, the answer is : Had he not been so, if on any 
occasion he had deviated from perfect rectitude be- 
fore God, the almighty Father could not have said 
to him when he was about thirty years old, " This 
is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased ; " 
nor could he have been fitted to make an accepta- 
ble atonement for man's sin. 

Our information of his early life is very meagre. 
When twelve years old, he conversed with the 
rabbis and doctors in the temple on the great prin- 
ciples of God's kingdom, and astonished them by 
his answers ; and u he increased in wisdom and 
stature, and in favor with God and man." 

We learn nothing further of him until he was 
about thirty years of age, when he came down 
some sixty or seventy miles to his relative John, 
the forerunner, to be baptized by him. 

As to what occurred with him during the inter- 
vening eighteen years, we are left to conjecture ; 
but we have no reason to suppose that in that 
interim he manifested any divine power, or claimed 
any divine authority. 

The nearest approach to this is his answer to 
his mother, when he was found in the temple: 
" Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 43 

business ? " Here he evidently claims God as his 
Father. 

Thus, up to his baptism, he stood before the 
community as any other man who was strictly 
moral and devout ; and after this the only differ- 
ence was that he devoted himself wholly to the 
spiritual and temporal good of the people, in his 
wonderful teachings and miracles which, through 
the power of the Father, he performed ; for he 
says, " The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
works " (John xiv. 10). It is not a divine Son, but 
the Father, whom he speaks of as dwelling in him. 

Therefore, in all his intercourse with the peo- 
ple, he was wont to use the pronouns referring to 
himself as men commonly use them, and evident- 
ly was so understood. He made no reference to 
his connection with God except when he specially 
wished to bring this connection into view ; as in 
the words, " I and my Father are one." 

No one supposes that he prayed as a divine 
Son ; yet the pronouns that he applies to himself 
in his prayers are used precisely as on other ordi- 
nary occasions. Thus he says, " I have glorified 
thee on the earth ; I have finished the work which 
thou gavest me to do. ... O Father, glorify thou 
me " (John xvii. 4, 5). The pronouns " I " and 
" me " are here used in just the same sense as in 
the passages, " I have meat to eat that ye know 
not of" (John iv. 32), and, " Have I been so long 
time with you, and yet hast thou not known me ? " 

In almost innumerable instances Jesus uses the 



44 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

pronoun " I " when referring merely to his human- 
ity ; yet, as before observed, he sometimes includes 
in it his divinity, as when he says, " I have power . 
to lay it [life] down ; and I have power to take it 
again." He must here mean his human life ; and 
the " I " includes his divinity ; for as man he had 
no more power to take back his life than any other 
man ; and Paul says, " God raised him from the 
dead " (Acts xiii. 30). 

All the writers of the New Testament, when 
treating of Christ in his ordinary intercourse with 
men, speak of him as a man ; but when divinity 
was manifested in him, their language was gen- 
erally different. 

In many incidents of his life we see no signs 
of divinity, while in others we see little else than 
divinity. This all harmonizes perfectly when we re- 
member that divinity and humanity are one in him. 

But let us proceed to the more direct proofs of 
the position that Christ existed as a human being 
before the creation. 

This once admitted as a settled fact drawn 
from the Scriptures, the way is clear for the con- 
sideration of the other positions which have been 
advanced. 

Sec. II. — The Terms " Set ttp" &c, signify Com- 
mencement of Existence. 

First. The expressions " begotten," " set up," 
" brought forth," " first-born," " first-begotten," 
" only-begotten," " beginning of creation," &c, 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 45 

each and all, when applied to the existence of a 
being, naturally and necessarily convey the idea 
of a beginning of existence ; to endeavor to force 
some other meaning upon them, in support of any 
doctrine, should not be countenanced in dealing 
with the Scriptures. 

All these expressions, and others of like import, 
are used by the sacred writers in reference to the 
Lord Jesus Christ before his incarnation. Now, as 
commencement of existence cannot be affirmed of 
deity or divinity, they must refer in some way to 
Christ as having had such commencement ; and 
since, as before seen, Christ did actually exist be- 
fore the creation, while his body did not exist till 
about four thousand years afterwards, we are left 
to the alternative that the expressions above 
named refer to his human soul, if we admit, as 
most evangelical believers do, that he had such a 
soul. How he could make atonement for human 
souls without possessing one himself, is beyond 
our comprehension. On which last point, indeed, 
much more might be said. 

Sec. III. — Psalms ii. 7, 8 ; Colossians i. 15, &c. 

In Ps. ii. 7, 8, it is written : " The Lord hath 
said unto me, Thou art my Son : this day have I 
begotten thee. Ask of me," &c. This is generally 
taken as an address of the Father to the Son. 
If this is a correct view (and we have not heard it 
questioned), we have the Father declaring to the 
Son his sonship, and referring to a period when 



46 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

it commenced, — " this day." Now, other Scrip- 
tures, such as " he was before all things," and, " in 
the beginning of his way," " before his works of 
old," " from the beginning, or ever the earth was " 
(Prov. viii. 22, 23), show that the period marked by 
" this day" was before the creation. 

Since, then, this " Son " had a commencement 
of existence, and that commencement was before 
the creation, are we not shut up to the conclusion 
that this begotten son of Jehovah was no less than 
the human soul of Christ ? What else could he 
be ? Not an eternal Son, for a time is designated 
by his Father when he was begotten, or had be- 
ginning of existence. Is there anything unnatural 
in this, or that looks like undue effort to make out 
a point ? 

Again : " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us ; and we beheld his glory, as of the only- 
begotten of the Father" (John i. 14). This Word 
is admitted to be the same being to whom Jehovah 
said, " Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten 
thee." Now, as John tells us that the Word was 
with God in the beginning, the expression used by 
Jehovah, " this day," fixes a period when the Son 
was begotten, or commenced his existence : that 
period, then, must have been anterior to the cre- 
ation. Hence we arrive at the same conclusion as 
above, viz., that Jehovah's Son, begotten at a cer- 
tain period implied by the words " this day," could 
not have had eternal existence, but was necessarily 
that human being, our " elder brother," to whom 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 4/ 

God said, " Let us make man in our image, after 
our likeness." Was he not that soul of Christ that 
came down from heaven, " was made flesh, or, 
united with flesh, and dwelt among men," of whom 
John says, " We beheld his glory, the glory as of 
the only-begotten of the Father " ? 

Observe now how John connects the " Word " 
with the " Son " of the Psalmist. Jehovah says, 
" Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten 
thee ; " and John says, " We beheld his glory, as 
of the only-begotten of the Father." 

See also Ps. lxxxix. 26, 27. " He shall cry unto 
me, Thou art my Father, my God . . . also I will 
make him my first-born," &c. Does this language 
seem appropriate for God to use, speaking to a son 
of inherently equal existence, powers, and attri- 
butes with himself? How could God the Father 
make an eternal God the Son his first-born ? 
Would not the Son have been the same as the 
Father ? We are aware that this is primarily 
spoken of David ; but it is generally understood 
as referring to the Messiah. 

Let these two verses follow those quoted from 
the second Psalm, and suppose the language that of 
the Almighty Father to a literally begotten Son, 
soon after he was brought into existence, and see 
how appropriately they would read : " Thou art my 
Son ; this day have I begotten thee." " Ask of 
me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine in- 
heritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for 
thy possession." " He shall cry unto me, Thou art 



48 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

my Father, my God, the rock of my salvation ; also 
I will make him my first-born, higher than the 
kings of the earth." 

The above well accords with all the language of 
the Father concerning the Son, especially with the 
declaration, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." Was it not to the man Jesus 
these words were addressed ? 

Did not the human Jesus cry unto Him, " Father, 
save me from this hour " ? Did he not cry, " My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me " ? And 
did he not make his Father the " rock of his salva- 
tion " during his whole ministry ? 

The being in this eighty-ninth Psalm is evidently 
the same to whom God said in the second Psalm, 
"Thou art my Son," &c, where, as has been 
shown, a period was fixed wen he was begotten, 
a period previous to the creation. And let it be 
borne in mind that this Son, whose existence be- 
gan at a period before the creation, was the self- 
same Son addressed, at his baptism, by the Father. 
In this Psalm the Son is represented as calling 
God his Father and his God, and is answered 
by God with a promise that he should be his first- 
born, and as such placed higher than the kings of 
the earth. 

It is alleged that the term " first-born " is here 
given simply as a kind of title or position by which 
the receiver comes to possess special advantages ; 
and that reference is made to the Mosaic ritual, 
where the first-born in several ways had superi- 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 49 

ority. But, it will be remembered, in that dispen- 
sation the first-born received the advantages con- 
ferred on him on the ground of his being the 
first-born son in the family : that fact gave him the 
pre-eminence. Thus Christ, as having been the 
first-born of the human family, has the pre-emi- 
nence over all the children of men. 

His prior existence gives him the pre-eminence. 

This well agrees with God's decree in the second 
Psalm, " Thou art my Son : this day have I begot- 
ten thee : ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen 
for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
earth for thy possession ; " and in the other Psalm, 
" I will make him my first-born, higher than the 
kings of the earth." Does he not receive the pre- 
eminence ? and does he not receive it on the ground 
of his being humanly the " first-born " or the " be- 
ginning" ? 

In Col. i. 15, Paul calls him the "first-born of 
every creature." What did Paul mean by that ex- 
pression ? Would it not convey to an impartial mind 
that he was the first in the order of the creation ? 

And when we find this so fully corroborated by 
other scriptures, we are unable to attach to it any 
other meaning. If we are correct in so doing, 
what can this first-born be, other than the human 
soul of Jesus ? 

Once admit that the man Jesus, as to his soul, 
was literally "the only-begotten Son" (John iii. 
16), " the first-born of every creature," " the first- 
begotten" (Heb. i. 6), "the only-begotten of the 
4 



\ 



50 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Father," and was with him "before all things" 
(Col. i. 17), and by union with him (John x. 30) was 
clothed with divine attributes, then all these and 
other expressions become clear and natural. 

Sec IV. — yohn vi. 62 ; xvi. 28. 

The passages in John's Gospel having the same 
import are too numerous to mention. A few of 
the most prominent ones will be noticed, some of 
which seem to place the subject in such a light as 
to settle controversy. 

" What and if ye shall see the Son of man 
ascend up where he was before ? " (John vi. 62). 
Look a moment at this expression, " the Son of 
man." This title is applied in the New Testament 
to the Saviour more than forty times ; and in all 
but two or three, Christ so calls himself. For the 
most part it refers to his humanity alone, either to 
the soul or the body, but more frequently to both. 
In a few instances it includes his divinity, as when 
he justifies his language to the palsied man : "But 
that ye may know that the Son of man hath power, 
on earth to forgive sins " (Matt. ix. 6) ; and again, 
" The Son of man shall send forth his angels " 
(Matt. xiii. 41). These and some other passages 
show his divine power ; and he tells us from whom 
he received this power : " the Father that dwelleth 
in me, he doeth the works." 

With this thought in view, let us again read the 
passage, " What and if ye shall see the Son of man 
ascend up where he was before ? " 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 5 1 

But, according to the common theory, when 
Christ spoke these words there had never been a 
" Son of man " in heaven, but a divine Son only. 
Were that the fact, why did not Christ so say ? 
Why did he not say, " What and if ye shall see the 
Son of God ascend," &c. ? That expression could 
include both natures ; for the union of the divine 
Son with the man Jesus would make the divine 
Son and the human Jesus one : in that case, if 
Christ had said, " If ye shall see the Son of God 
ascend up where he was before," it would have 
been proper ; for the soul and body, being united 
with the divine Son, must have ascended with him. 
But Christ did not so speak. His words are, " If 
ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he 
was before? Observe, "Where the Son of man 
was before? As this name always included his hu- 
manity when applied to himself, does it not estab- 
lish the point beyond question that his humanity 
was in heaven before he was manifested on earth ? 

Let it be remembered that Christ's question at 
this time was in answer to the murmurings of the 
disciples, who had said, " This is a hard saying : 
who can hear it ? " " Does this offend you ? " says 
Christ. " What will you say if you see me ascend 
up where I was before I came upon earth ? " This 
seems to be the simple purport of the text : but 
Christ fixes it yet more definitely ; and that there 
should be no mistake, he says " the Son of man? 
Did not Christ intend to convey to the disciples 
that it was this Son of man who should ascend, as 



52 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

really as he intended to convey to them that it was 
this Sen cf man who should be betrayed and cru- 
cified, when he informed them of his arrest and 
execution ? 

So also in John xvi. 28 : "I came forth from the 
Father, and am come into the world ; again, I leave 
the world and go to the Father." Did not the dis- 
ciples understand him to mean himself, as man, as 
he stood before them, when they answered (verse 
29), " Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest 
no proverb ; " " By this we believe that thou earnest 
forth from God " ? 

Did the disciples imagine there was a divine Son 
of God united with the man Jesus Christ, and that 
this divine Son was the being who came forth from 
God, and was to return to God ? Did Christ in- 
tend they should so understand him ? Jesus adds, 
(verse 32), "Ye shall be scattered, every man to 
his own, and shall leave me alone : and yet I am 
not alone, because the Father [not divine Son] is 
with me." Do not the pronouns "me" and "I," in 
the above, refer exclusively to the man ? 

Sec V. — John vi. 30. 

In John vi. 30, Jesus says, " I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 
him that sent me." Take this in connection with 
chap. v. 30, which reads thus : " As I hear, I judge : 
and my judgment is just ; because I seek not mine 
own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent 
me." As before remarked, these verses show that 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 53 

there were two wills in heaven, the Father's and 
the Son's ; for he says, " I came down from heaven 
not to do mine own will!' 

Certainly, then, the Son had a will in heaven 
before he came to earth ; and that will, although 
in harmony with, was not, the Father's will : for he 
came down to do, not the one, but the other. 

Now if this " I " and " my " and " mine " refer to 
a divine Son, this Son must have had a will separate 
from that of his Father. And if possessing a 
separate will, it follows he must have been a sepa- 
rate being ; for a divine Son, inherently of the 
same essence with his Father, could not have a 
separate will. Therefore the Son who came down 
from heaven exclusively to do his Father's will 
could not have been a divine Son. 

We must keep in view it was Jesus Christ who 
"came down from heaven,'' for he says, "/ came 
down from heaven." Clearly, then, it must have 
been that Son who could "do nothing of himself 
but what he seeth the Father do" (John v. 19). 

What part of the complex Christ was it which 
came down from heaven? His body had not yet 
been in heaven. Most assuredly, then, it must have 
been the human soul of Jesus. We have heard of 
but one way of treating these verses in John when 
supposed to apply to an eternal divine Son ; and 
that is the assertion, "The subject is a mystery ! " 

The mystery really is, how a thoughtful mind 
can be satisfied with such a statement, when the 
truth is so simple and clear. We know " secret 



54 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

things belong to the Lord our God : " we also 
know that those "things which are revealed be- 
long to us and our children " (Deut. xxix. 29). 

If any doctrines of Christ are plainly revealed in 
the New Testament, it would seem that the exist- 
ence of the human soul of Christ with his Father 
in heaven, before the creation, is one of them. 

One would suppose the Saviour foresaw that 
error would find its way into the Church, calculated 
to mystify his glorious character, and that he was 
on his guard against the use of any words from 
which the idea of an eternal divine Son could be 
drawn ; for he constantly uses language incon- 
sistent with such a doctrine. 

How often he repeats such expressions as, " I 
came from the Father," "came not of myself," 
" was sent," " was given," &c. ! If we mistake 
not, there are between thirty and forty instances 
in the Evangelists, where Christ alludes to himself, 
or is spoken of, as having been "sent;" and in 
every one the idea that his Father sent him is im- 
plied or expressed. 

Now, all these irresistibly convey to the mind 
the idea of two beings, the one having superiority 
over the other. The mind as naturally receives 
this view as the lungs inhale the atmosphere. How 
unnatural the idea that one person of the Godhead 
should send another person of the Godhead ! These 
persons being, as is asserted, inherently "of the 
same essence, and equal in every divine perfection," 
there could of course be but one will ; yet one 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 55 

sends the other ! How could such a divine Son 
say, " I came not of myself," unless, as none would 
admit, there could be two wills in Deity ? 

Would it not be just as proper to say that the 
Son sent the Father, who certainly was on earth ? 
— and, indeed, more proper, since Christ always 
recognized the Father as dwelling in him, and 
doing the works, but never mentions an eternal 
Son. If there were such a Son, must he not have 
remained in heaven ? We hear nothing of him on 
earth. 

True, Peter says to Jesus, " Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God. 7 ' Jesus himself, on his 
oath before the Sanhedrim, admits the same. It 
is asserted that the term Christ implies an eter- 
nal Son in these declarations. But whence the 
authority for this ? That he was a " begotten " 
Son is abundantly attested. Could he be both a 
begotten and unbegotten Son ? 

Sec VI. — Christ's Prayer in yohn .xvii. 

Again, it is evident that when Christ prayed, he 
prayed only as a man, a dependent human being. 
Although he was God by virtue of his peculiar 
union with the Father, yet his humanity was as de- 
pendent on the Father as if there had been no such 
connection ; as he says, " The Son can do nothing 
of himself.' 7 Of course, then, in his prayers at 
least, the pronouns "/" and u me" can refer only 
to his humanity. 

Let us now turn to his memorable prayer in the 



56 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

seventeenth of John. In the first verse he prays, 
" Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may also 
glorify thee." Keeping in view that he prays as a 
man, and that the man praying is the Son, does he 
pray that an eternal Son may be glorified ? Is it 
not, rather, that the human Son now praying may 
be glorified in the death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion which were just before him ? Can it be diffi- 
cult to determine these questions ? 

Also, take the fourth and fifth verses, where, after 
saying, " I have glorified thee on the earth," &c, 
implying that his whole aim, in his labors for the 
good of men, had been to exalt and glorify his 
Father, and that now it only remained to suffer, 
rise from the dead, and give the last instructions to 
his disciples, he introduces this remarkable petition : 
" And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine 
own self, with the glory which I had with thee be- 
fore the world was." This petition, though short, 
is very comprehensive. It shows, first, that the 
man now praying had been with his Father before 
the creation of the world ; second, that it was 
a state of glory in which he had been with his 
Father ; third, that he had for a time been di- 
vested of much of that glory, having been engaged 
in completing a work which the Father had given 
him to do ; and, fourth, that he now asks to be 
taken back into that glorious state which he enjoyed 
with the Father before his descent to earth. 

What is there more in the whole scheme of re- 
demption ? We have Christ coming from heaven, 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 5? 

taking a human body, performing works of mercy 
as one of the human family, in that state fulfilling 
the divine law to its penalty, rising from under 
the same, proclaiming salvation to all who should 
believe on him, and then re-ascending to his native 
heaven : all this is directly or indirectly included in 
this short prayer. 

Such seems to be a natural unfolding of the 
thoughts this prayer contains ; and it is difficult to 
see how any one can discover in it the idea of an 
eternal divine Son, who, as is commonly taught, 
laid aside his glory in order to dwell in the body 
of Jesus. 

Now, if the position is correct, that Christ prayed 
only as a human being, then the view alluded to, 
which seems to divest the prayer of all its beauty 
and pathos, at once disappears. 

How strangely it sounds to say that the eternal 
God the Son prays to the eternal God the Father 
to be re-invested with the glory which he had with 
him before he came to earth ! But admit that the 
soul of the man praying had been in heaven, in a 
state of union and glory with the Father, before 
his appearance " in the form of a servant " on 
earth, and the prayer at once becomes intelligible, 
and harmonious with all the teachings of Christ 
concerning himself. 

See also the twenty-fourth verse, where Christ 
says, " For thou lovedst me before the foundation 
of the world." This passage, we are aware, may be 
explained in the same way as those which speak of 



58 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

believers as " chosen in Christ before the founda- 
tion of the world." 

But it is more simple and natural to connect it 
with the prayer in the fifth verse. We should like 
to linger on this prayer, and to comment on some 
of its other expressions ; but it is not necessary. 
It may be said of it as a whole, as was remarked on 
verse 5, that, from beginning to end, it shows, as 
clearly as words can, an inferior being addressing 
one who is superior, a loving Father, on whom the 
suppliant is wholly dependent. If this is not the 
meaning, we frankly confess ourselves unable to 
understand it. 

Let the reader remember, that, in deciding this 
question whether it is an eternal Son who is pray- 
ing through the humanity of Jesus, or whether it 
is strictly the man Jesus himself who prays to his 
Father, we really decide the question as to the ex- 
istence of an eternal Son ; for the being who offers 
this prayer is the one who was in glory with 
the Father before the world was. 

Now what being could this be other than the 
human soul of Christ ? 

But it may be said, " How could a created being 
be so united to the eternal God that the two should 
become one ? " We answer, as before, " We can- 
not tell." It will then be said, " Here, then, is a 
mystery." Most assuredly there is ; but is it any 
greater mystery that the man Jesus should be 
united to God his Father, than that the same man 
Jesus should, according to the general belief, be 



CHRIST HUMAN BEFORE THE CREATION. 59 

united to God an eternal Son ? In each case 
equally the divinity of the man would be the di- 
vinity which comes from union with Him who is 
inherently divine. 

But this is not our only answer. It was the 
work of God. We do not profess to explain or 
understand the manner of God's doings further 
than it is revealed. 

We have more than once alluded to the union 
of the human soul and body as an illustration of 
that celestial Union ; and we cannot do better. 

We know, from our own consciousness, that the 
human soul and body are one ; and we know that 
the begotten Son and his Father are one, because 
Christ and the apostles have so declared. All men 
acknowledge the fact in the former case ; so will 
we speak and act in the latter. 

Sec. VII. — Description of Christ in Revelation. 

Before leaving this point of Christ as being in 
human nature with his Father prior to the incar- 
nation, attention is called to one of the twenty 
appellations or descriptions which Christ applies 
to himself in his messages to the seven churches 
of Asia, contained in the second and third chapters 
of the Apocalypse. Each of these has something 
applicable to himself: several refer to his first ap- 
pearance to John on the island. 

Read concerning his appearance, and the fur- 
ther narration in Rev. i. 14-18. It will be seen 
that the person there speaking is " he that liveth and 



60 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

was dead." This clause seems to be thrown in 
that John should not mistake the person, that it 
was truly Jesus of Nazareth. John says of him in 
the thirteenth verse that "he was like unto the 
Son of man." No one doubts that this person 
was Jesus Christ, " who had all power given to 
him in heaven and in earth ; " and in these pres- 
entations and messages he shows the disposition 
to be made of that power. 

In the last one of these descriptions, he calls 
himself "the beginning of the creation of God." 

Who this being was with whom God began his 
creation, has been shown under another head (see 
page u). His appearance to John at first, and all 
the descriptions and representations that follow, go 
to establish the fact that it was Christ, as a man, 
who met and conversed with John ; and evidently 
it was the man Jesus, and his angels, who mostly 
communicated with John on the island. 

If, then, it was the man Jesus whom John saw in 
such majesty, it must have been the same who was 
" the beginning of the creation of God ; " therefore 
it must have been as a man that he was with his 
Father before the creation of the world. 

We now think it has been fully shown that there 
were two wills in heaven before the creation ; and 
if two wills, then two beings ; and that one of these 
beings Gould be no other than that human soul of 
Christ that came down and dwelt with men, as one 
of the human family. 



WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST? 6l 



CHAPTER V. 

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF 
CHRIST? 

Advancing now to another point of this subject, 
we hope to show to the satisfaction of every candid 
mind, that the divinity of the Lord yesns Christ 
consists in the union of his humanity with the eter- 
nal God his Father, and not, as is generally held, 
with an eternal divine Son, 

Sec I. — Christ affirms that all his Works are by 
the Power of the Father. 

In all Christ's teachings as to his divine nature, 
as has been before remarked, there is not the first 
instance of so much as an allusion to a connection 
with a divine Son, nor even the most distant hint 
of the existence of such a Son. Attention is called 
to this fact as a strong inferential evidence of his 
non-existence. 

On the contrary, whenever he refers to his di- 
vine nature and power, he invariably attributes all 
to his Father. The passages are too numerous to 
quote, the Evangelists, especially John, abounding 
in them. We select a few of the more prominent, 
some of which have already been introduced. John 
xiv. 7 : "If ye had known me, ye should have 
known my Father also : and from henceforth ye 
know him and have seen him." 



62 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

How had the disciples seen the Father ? Jesus 
tells us : " The works that I do in my Father's 
name, they bear witness of me." He does not say 
"in the divine Son's name," which doubtless he 
would have said if he had been united to such a 
Son, and wrought by his power. 

The disciples had seen the Father in him, in the 
divine works which he did, just as John had " heard, 
seen, and handled the word of life ; " and just as 
we should say of a neighbor, " I saw Mr. A.," when 
we had seen only the body : the soul, the real man, 
we had not seen. In the same sense Jesus says, 
" He that seeth me seeth him that sent me " (John 
xii. 45), and he tells us many times who it was that 
sent him. 

In answer to the request of Philip, to show 
them the Father, he expresses surprise that, after 
all they had seen of his divine works, and his 
repeated assertions of his inability to do them of 
himself, and that he did them all by his Father, 
they should still be ignorant of his true character ; 
and he further assures them (chap. xiv. 9-1 1) that 
it was by his union with the Father that all his 
wonderful works were performed. 

But as he was " in the Father and the Father in 
him," and " he and the Father were one " (that is, 
one by the union of the two), there belonged to 
him the nature and the powers of each ; and he 
could do the works of both the Father and the 
human Son. 

Accordingly he says (John x. 37), " If I do not 



WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST? 6$ 

the works of my Father, believe me not." He 
acknowledges that this claim to union with his 
Father is not entitled to be accepted on his bare 
statement, but needs to be proved by other evi- 
dence ; therefore he says, " The works that I do 
in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." 

Other teachings of his had their evidence large- 
ly in themselves ; but this claim of a special union 
with the Father needed the further evidence of his 
divine works. 

Thus we have in Jesus Christ the God-man, or 
" God with us," in the clearest possible sense. In 
this way alone does he assert for himself divine 
power and authority, attributing all to his Father, 
the one supreme God. 

Where, then, is there the slightest ground for 
imagining an eternal Son between God the Father 
and the man Jesus thus conversing with the dis- 
ciples ? Had there been such a Son, must he 
not have known it ? And, if he knew it, would he 
not have made some allusion to it, that the Church 
might not have been left for ages to conjectures on 
the subject? He came to instruct in the things of 
the kingdom of heaven, as well as to save the souls 
of men. 

If, therefore, the doctrine of an eternal Son of 
God, held to be so fundamental in the economy of 
salvation, be true, it certainly detracts from the 
character of the blessed Saviour, that, in all his 
teachings in the course of his ministry, he should 
not give so much as one hint of it to his disciples. 



64 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Sec. II. — Retrospective View. 

Let us now look, for a moment, at the Scrip- 
tures thus far employed in our argument, -with 
perhaps a few others, by way, mainly, of recapitu- 
lation. 

The following expressions are generally admitted 
to refer to Jesus Christ : he was " the beginning of 
the creation of God ; " " he was before all things ; " 
he was " in the beginning ; " he " was possessed of 
Jehovah in the beginning of his way ; " he " was set 
up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever 
the earth was." 

He was united with God in the creation of the 
world : for " God created the heavens and the 
earth ; " and " the Son made all things, visible and 
invisible ; " and " by him God made the worlds." 
He was with God in the creation of man. He left 
heaven and came to earth ; for " he came forth 
from the Father, and came into the world." He 
was sent into the world by his Father. He was 
sent to do a certain work. 

While performing his works on earth, he speaks 
to his disciples of his " ascending up where he was 
before." He says he " knows Him who sent him, 
for he was from him." 

Having established the fact of his union with 
his Father, he then prays to be reinstated in the 
exalted condition which he necessarily laid aside 
to dwell with men on the earth. And having 
fulfilled in the flesh all the divine requirements, 



WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST? 65 

in spirit, word, and deed, he then, on the cross, 
makes his last public proclamation, which was to 
all the world, " It is finished." 

Having thus far examined the Scriptures mainly 
relied on to prove the existence of an eternal Son 
of God, and called attention to their simple, literal 
import, we think we may challenge any one to say 
if we have sought to pervert them, or draw from a 
single passage an unwarranted meaning. 

We have also endeavored to show, from the 
Saviour's own teachings, in what his divine nature 
and power to work miracles consisted. 

It may be said that we set aside the fundamental 
doctrine of the divinity of the Son of God, and 
reduce him to a mere man. Confessedly, we do 
regard the Son of God as man ; but we recognize 
him also, in the highest sense, as God, by such a 
union with God as that he and his Father are One. 

We have endeavored to be explicit on this point, 
believing the doctrine of the union of divinity and 
humanity to lie at the basis of salvation through 
the atonement of Christ ; for, without such union 
of God with man, it does not appear that there 
could be an atonement. 

Do we make the Son of man less divine by be- 
lieving his own words, that his divinity is of his 
Father, than we should by believing the words of 
men, who say it consisted in a union with a divine 
Son ? 

5 



66 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

He tells us his divinity is of the Father : men 
tell us it is of a divine Son. 

We believe we have shown that the Lord Jesus 
Christ is as truly divine as he is human ; that he 
possessed three natures : first, that of God the 
Father, the divine nature ; second, the human soul, 
the human immortal nature ; third, the body, the 
material nature, — these three united in one. The 
natural eye could see only one ; but the other two 
were really the acting power to perform the work 
through the body. 

Sec. III. — Respecting Arianisrn. 

It is said, again, that these views differ little from 
those of the old Arians. 

We admit that there is a point of resemblance 
between the position here taken and that of the 
Arians, viz., the impossibility of a Father and a Son 
existing co-eternally. 

Arianisrn, it is well known, took its rise from the 
address of Bishop Alexander to his presbyters and 
lesser clergy, wherein he asserts that the Son is co- 
eternal, co-equal, and co-essential with the Father. 

To this statement Arius took exception, saying 
that there could not be a Father and a Son of co- 
eval existence. Alexander strenuously maintained 
his position, which had long been the general doc- 
trine of the Church ; and most of the bishops and 
presbyters went with him. Arius as firmly kept 
his ground, that it is impossible for the Son to be 
co-eternal with his Father. Thus the division in 



WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST? 6? 

the Church commenced. Each party had its ad- 
herents. 

So far as we have been able to learn, Arius, be- 
fore this controversy arose, stood as well in the 
Church for piety and zeal as others of his order. 
At first he did not deny the divinity of the Son, 
but acknowledged him as the second person in the 
Godhead. But the Arians soon saw that they must 
either give up the doctrine of the Son's innate di- 
vinity, or admit his co-eternity with the Father ; 
for if he was not thus co-eternal, he could not be 
inherently divine : and they chose to surrender the 
idea of his divinity. 

As, however, the evidence that he existed before 
the creation of the world, and took part in that 
creation, was too strong to be denied, they called 
him the first and highest of all created beings. 

To trace the subsequent history of Arianism, 
with its various parties and gross errors, till it be- 
came virtually extinct, is foreign to our purpose. 

Alexander's party, which was the Trinitarian, 
saw an inexplicable difficulty in their doctrine of a 
trinity in the Godhead. The divinity of the Son 
was too clearly taught in the Bible for them to 
think of relinquishing that. On this also rested 
their hopes of salvation. 

But to call the Son divine when he was not God 
in the highest sense, was to them a contradiction ; 
and if he was God in this sense, he must, they 
thought, have existed from eternity. How a Father 
and a Son could be each from eternity, they could 



68 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

not explain ; and consequently, as it was a matter 
relating to the Divine existence, they took refuge 
in the conclusion that it was an inexplicable mys- 
tery. 

In most of the various councils subsequently 
called, this subject was discussed, and often at much 
length, until finally it was settled according to the 
Athanasian Creed, which teaches that the Father 
is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is 
God, and yet the three Persons are but one God. 

How the personal Father, the personal Son, and 
the personal Holy Ghost could exist as one God, 
was left a mystery. It became, however, the doc- 
trine of the Church, and has so continued down to 
the present day. Hundreds of biblical students 
have written on this doctrine ; but no one has ex- 
plained it. 

The exact date of its introduction into the 
Church we have been unable to learn. Probably 
it was brought forward in the third, or latter part 
of the second century, when almost all sorts of 
speculations were rampant in the Church. Gue- 
ricke's concise account of those times shows that 
almost every school, and many bishops, agitated 
the community with some new doctrines or sys- 
tems. We hear Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea early 
in the fourth century, say that " he was early 
taught it while a catechumen, and also by his pred- 
ecessors." Is not this a tacit confession that he 
did not receive it from the teachings of Christ or 
his apostles ? 



WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST? 69 

No doubt numberless disciples can say with Eu- 
sebius, that " they were early taught it ; " but can 
any believer in the doctrine say that it was taught 
him from the Holy Scriptures ? 

The difficulty with both Alexander and Arius, 
and their great error, appears to have been in sup- 
posing, in common with their predecessors, that 
the humanity of Christ, including soul and body, 
took its origin with the babe in Bethlehem. Not 
doubting that this was the fact, each framed his 
theory accordingly. 

Hence, the Arians, while exalting him as a crea- 
ture, denied that he was God. The Trinitarians, 
unable to give up the idea of his proper divinity, 
maintained that he was the Son of God from all 
eternity. Thus arose the doctrine of his eternal 
generation. . ; 

Now, had the Church teachers of those times 
carefully studied the words of Jesus, and the writ- 
ings of John and Paul, on this subject, instead of 
relying on their instructors and predecessors, we 
think they would have found, in the pre-existence 
of the human soul of Christ, an intermediate point 
of view, which would have saved them from these 
conflicting theories. 

The Trinitarian would have seen that the Son, 
begotten "before the world was," but not from 
eternity, could be truly God by union with his 
Father. 

The Arian, too, would have learned that it was 
possible for him to maintain that the Son is a ere- 



yO BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ated and derived being, without denying his real 
divinity. 

So far as Arius asserts the strict unity of God, 
the impossibility of a Son being co-eternal with his 
Father, and his consequently derived existence, 
it will be seen that our views agree. But when 
he denies that the Son is truly divine as God is 
divine, we must leave him, and " walk no more 
with him," for Christ says, " I and my Father are 
one." 

Also, when the Trinitarian affirms that the Son 
or Logos is God, and possesses all divine attri- 
butes, we join heart and hand with him. We differ 
only when he teaches that the Son was co-existent 
with the Father, by " eternal generation," and was 
inherently divine. John the Baptist says, " God 
giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

Sec. I. — Non-personality of the Spirit in the 
Old Testament. 

The views of the Son of God that have now been 
advanced, it will be seen, are in conflict with the 
doctrine of an eternal Trinity. But if there was 
no eternal Son, there could have been no " second 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. J I 

person in the Godhead ; " and consequently no 
eternal Trinity. 

It will be remembered the position taken (page 
12) was that God existed as one Being up to the 
begetting of the Son, but not (so far as we know) 
as Father, for there was no Son. 

But there is a Trinity, adapted to our needs, of 
which the New Testament speaks, which will now 
be considered, together with the Personality of the 
Spirit. 

That there are three distinct personalities or 
agents in the Christian economy, the Scriptures 
clearly teach, each having his appropriate sphere in 
man's salvation ; and these three are, most emphat- 
ically, one. The two distinct persons, Father and 
Son, have already been considered, and their unity : 
we come now to the personality of the Holy Spirit, 
called by Jesus " the Comforter." 

At the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, Jesus 
made this declaration : " He that believeth on me, 
as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall 
flow rivers of living water." John adds : " But 
this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe 
on him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was 
not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glo- 
rified" (John vii. 38, 39). This he said in accord- 
ance with Christ's words in his last address to the 
disciples, where he declared, " It is expedient for 
you that I go away : for if I go not away, the Com- 
forter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I 
will send him unto you " (John xvi. 7). Here we 



72 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

have the testimony of Christ and John, that, before 
Christ's ascension, the Comforter or Holy Ghost 
had not come ; and each gives the same reason, 
viz., because Jesus had not ascended, or was not 
yet glorified. 

But, notwithstanding these declarations, we find, 
both in the Old Testament and the New, various 
works and manifestations, all which occurring prior 
to Christ's ministry, are attributed by the New 
Testament writers to the " Holy Ghost." 

" David said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said 
unto my Lord," &c. (Mark xii. 36). u Holy men 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 
Peter i. 21). The angel said to Mary, " The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee ; " and when she 
visited her cousin, and told her what the angel had 
announced, " Elizabeth was filled with the Holy 
Ghost." When John the Baptist was born, " his 
father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost." 
" It was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost 
that he should not see death until he had seen the 
Lord's Christ." "And Jesus, being full of the 
Holy Ghost, returned into Galilee." 

These and other acts, as just observed, are 
ascribed to the divine Spirit before Christ and 
John taught that the Holy Ghost had not yet 
come. 

Now, what were all the acts of the Spirit ? What 
«else were they than God communicating (through 
the begotten Son) his will to men ? His usual 
way of making known his will was by divine im- 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 73 

pression, attributing it to his Spirit. There were, 
however, other ways. It is often said, " The Lord 
spake : " whether using the human voice or some 
other instrumentality is not material. 

As, however, the " worlds were made " through 
the begotten human Son, we cannot see why he 
should not speak words through him ; and it would 
seem that God did sometimes speak with a human 
voice. He " called unto Adam, and said, Where 
art thou ? " and, " Who told thee that thou wast 
naked ? " likewise to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 
Moses, and others. We see no good reason to 
doubt that, in these cases, a human voice was 
used ; and, indeed, we are told that on one occa- 
sion God did use a voice. Ex. xix. 19: "Moses 
spake ; and God answered him by a voice." There 
were also divine messages through angels, through 
dreams, signs, visions, &c. Can any one discover 
a third person in the Godhead in these means of 
divine communication ? 

Were not these simply the movements or actions 
of that complex Being who created the heavens 
and the earth ? Is there any more need of recog- 
nizing a third person in these ancient acts of God 
than in his acts in the creation ? 

God, by and through his begotten Son, spake, 
and it was done. What person more was needed ? 

" But," says one, " a third person seems dis- 
tinctly recognized in the declaration, ' The Spirit 
of God moved upon the face of the waters.' " 

Would not the same sense be conveyed if it had 



74 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

been written, " God moved upon the face of the 
waters " ? What else, in fact, was this but God's 
own movement ? It will be observed that this 
sentence, like the preceding, is general in its char- 
acter. The narrative begins with general announce- 
ments. First, " God created the heavens and the 
earth." Next, " The Spirit of God moved upon the 
face of the waters." But no act of creation is yet 
defined ; there is simply the general description of 
movement. The narrator then proceeds to describe 
the different acts. No one, it is presumed, will say 
this movement was not God's act. 

Now, let us see what was specifically done by 
this general movement. " And God said, Let there 
be light, and there was light." Where is the third 
person in this act ? And yet this comes under that 
general movement in which many think they see 
a third person. Again, M God said, Let there be a 
firmament in the midst of the waters," &c. ; and 
God made the firmament, and divided the waters, 
&c. ; "and it was so." Can any one discover a 
third person in this ? Yet this is another act of 
the general movement. 

So' with regard to all the movements of God in 
the creation, and indeed in respect to all the divine 
movements down to the Pentecostal advent. We 
can find just as much, and no more, of a third per- 
son in them than we can in the acts of the crea- 
tion. 

But suppose there were such a person in Deity 
from eternity, of what possible benefit could it be 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 75 

to the human family ? What advantage would it 
be to believe that God performed a part of his 
works through an indescribable third person ? 

Certainly all his works were not done through 
such an agency, for Paul repeatedly assures us he 
created the world by his Son ; and unquestionably 
all the divine works that were wrought on earth 
while Christ was in the flesh were performed 
through the Son. Where, then, is the evidence, 
or ground for supposition even, that from the Crea- 
tion to the Incarnation all God's works were not 
performed on this same principle ? 

Is it not more simple, intelligible, and attracting 
to consider God as performing all his works (of 
which we have any knowledge) in one and the 
same manner in which he performed apart of them, 
viz., by and through his well-beloved, first-begotten 
Son, even our £lder Brother ? How near it brings 
God to us (or, rather, how near it brings us to Him), 
to contemplate the eternal Deity as working by our 
Brother-man ! 

In this plan of God's operation, is it too much 
to think we see, in our own constitution, an analogy 
or emblem of this method of divine working ? As 
the soul of man, as before observed, makes all its 
manifestations through the body with which it is 
united, so God acts through his human Son, united 
to him. 

Again, where is the necessity for a third person ? 
We have the Eternal God in union with this only- 
begotten Son, who has ever been, and still is, 



y6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

accessible to each of the human race — all-powerful, 
able to speak even a world into existence, forming 
a complete " way " of sympathizing communication 
with man, capable of imparting instruction in any 
form or manner that the case may require. What 
greater provision could we ask, or even conceive 
of, from our Heavenly Father ? 

Again, consider the inconsistency of distinguish- 
ing a third person in the passage under considera- 
tion. The account states that He " moved upon 
the face of the waters." And this is all that is said 
concerning him (if our memory serves us), for 
nearly sixteen hundred years : no allusion to him 
throughout the description of the creation ; nothing 
in all God's subsequent dealings with men, that can 
reasonably be attributed to a third person, until 
the days of Noah, when God said, " My Spirit shall 
not always strive with man." And would not the 
same idea have been conveyed had he said, " I will 
not always strive with man," or " My influence shall 
not," &c. ? 

If we can discover a third person in this saying 
to Noah, why not likewise in the words of Job, 
David, and others who make use of similar lan- 
guage ? 

Let us look at some of the passages which are 
thought to teach an eternal third person in the 
Godhead. " The Spirit of God moved " (Gen. i. 2) ; 
" Man in whom the Spirit of God is" (Gen. xli. 
38) ; " Filled with the Spirit of God " (Ex. xxxi. 
3) ; " The Spirit of God was upon him " (1 Sam. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. JJ 

xix. 23) ; " The Spirit of God made me " (Job xxiii. 
4) ; and many other like passages. 

Now, what do these expressions signify other 
than God acting, God moving, or the influence of 
God on men ? " God is a spirit ; " if therefore he 
acts at all, he must act as a spirit ; unless he should 
assume material form, which with his Son he did 
do on certain occasions. 

Where is the propriety of inferring a third per- 
son from the expression, " The Spirit of God 
moved," more than when we say, the spirit of man 
moved ? In the latter case, is not the act always 
and properly ascribed to the actor himself? Why 
not equally so in the former ? 

Sec. II. — The Spirit at Christ's Baptism. 

It is commonly held that the Trinity was fully 
demonstrated at Christ's baptism. The Father^ 
spake from heaven ; the Son, now incarnate, was 
present ; and the Spirit, " the third person," de- 
scended in the form of a dove, and abode upon him. 
And this occurring before the noted day of Pente- 
cost, " it proves," says one, " that the Trinity ex- 
isted before that day." 

No doubt it does seem satisfactory proof to such 
a one, in the same way as the first verses in John's 
Gospel ''prove" to commentators the eternity of 
the Son. When the mind is once fixed on certain 
views as being Christian doctrine, it can find what 
seems abundant proof of the same in the Bible. 
The greatest care should be taken lest our minds 



?S BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

be influenced by preconceptions, and that we ever 
be resolved to seek only the mind of Christ. 

A different view may be drawn from the circum- 
stances at the baptism, that may seem, in the minds 
of some, to come nearer the facts in the case. A 
change was now to be made in the visible methods 
of divine communication. All the various ways 
heretofore employed were about to cease, and their 
place be rilled by this visible Son. 

Two highly important matters were to be pre- 
sented : first, and undoubtedly the greatest, to 
announce to John, and through him to the world, 
that this man whom he had just baptized was the 
Son of God ; and that consequently he was the 
long looked for Messiah. John evidently appre- 
hended the object of this wonderful manifestation.* 
John the Evangelist also understood it, as appears 
in his first Epistle, as we shall see hereafter. 

The second object was to call the attention of the 
people away from all previous means of divine com- 
munication, and point them to this Son, inasmuch 
as he, during his ministry, was to be their only 
divine Teacher. To establish these things beyond 
question, the full requirement of the Jewish law as 
to witnesses, even in capital cases, was met, and 
a triple testimony furnished. It will be remem- 

* If we turn to John i. 32-34, we shall see the object of the 
dove's descent. John was the first and the only man who 
introduced Jesus to the world as the Lamb of God, and also 
as the Son of God. We there see John's authority for so 
doing. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 79 

bered that Christ was accustomed to call three 
witnesses to many of his important acts. Surely 
this was an occasion of the greatest magnitude ; 
all those outward means formerly used in convey- 
ing the divine will were to be changed, and trans- 
ferred to this man Jesus, who stood before them. 

Now, was it not as easy for this Being to assume 
the form of a dove, or to speak from heaven, or 
perform any other act in heralding this heaven-and- 
earth-born One, as to cure the leper, or call the 
dead to life ? 

It must not be forgotten that this was that same 
united complex Being who, more than four thou- 
sand years before, said, " Let there be light," and 
there was light. Why make Him a third person 
because assuming the form of a dove for a specific 
purpose, any more than because of his assuming 
the human form, as he did before Joshua by the 
walls of Jericho ? — or with Jacob when he wrestled 
with him till break of day ? 

If the words of Peter, " Holy men spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost/' are brought as 
an objection to our position, on the ground that 
they imply the existence of the Spirit as a person 
in the days of the prophets, the answer is, that 
Peter might quite properly write thus some thirty 
years after the divine influence had been personi- 
fied as the Comforter or Holy Ghost, by the au- 
thority of Christ. 

But why spend time in showing there was no 
personal Holy Ghost prior to his advent on the 



80 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

day of Pentecost ? We have Christ's positive 
words, as before quoted, that if he went not away, 
the Comforter would not come. " If I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; " 
plainly showing that he had not then come. And 
he further says, " The Comforter, who is the Holy 
Ghost." John, also, referring to a declaration of 
Christ a few months previous to the above, affirms, 
"The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because 
Jesus was not yet glorified." Thus the unequivo- 
cal declarations of Christ and John stand together, 
that the Comforter or Holy Ghost had not come 
previous to Christ's ascension. 

If any one should be willing to confront this 
twofold testimony and declare the Holy Ghost had 
come, and was a third person in the Godhead from 
eternity, we can only say, " Put off thy shoes from 
off thy feet," for thou treadest on holy ground. 

We well know that efforts, which we hardly 
know how to characterize as other than sophistical, 
have been put forth to compel these witnesses to 
testify what they never did, nor ever intended to 
testify. But the inspired word, and that only, with 
what is conformed thereto, will stand until the 
visible heavens and earth shall pass away. 

When, however, Christ was baptized, and began 
his public ministry, and the people were directed 
to him by the manifestation at the baptism, he now 
becomes not only the spiritual, as he always had 
been, but also the only visible channel of divine 
communication. And why should he not be ? 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 8 1 

The spiritual days-man he had been ever since 
man was on earth. Now, furnished with a body- 
through its organs he can talk with men as men 
talk with one another ; and, being one with the 
Father, God through him communicates orally, 
familiarly, and in sympathy with man. 

Wonderful provision ! 

For a moment let us contemplate Christ talking 
to and with men as another man ; and, being this 
wonderful, complex person, as represented, how 
naturally and appropriately such sentences as the 
following fall from his lips ! " My doctrine is not 
mine, but his that sent me " (John vii. 16). Here, 
we must see, Christ was speaking expressly as a 
man ; for the expressions "my" "mine" and "me" 
could not include a divine Son, for if they did, 
the doctrine must have been as really his as his 
Father's. 

But an entirely dependent human being as Jesus 
frequently declared himself to be, could say so with 
propriety ; for he received his doctrine from his 
Father. He continues (v. 17), " If any man will do 
his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it 
be of God, or whether I speak of myself/' 

What this doctrine was, he tells us in John vi. 
40 : " Every one that seeth the Son, and believeth 
on him, may have everlasting life." This is the 
doctrine he ever preached, until he was nailed to 
the cross. 

6 



82 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Sec. III. — Christ during his Ministry the sole 
Channel of Divine Communication. 

Thus a small volume might be filled in showing 
that Christ as a man, during the three and a half 
years of his ministry, was the sole organ of divine 
communication between God and the human fami- 
ly. The Spirit and the power were given to the 
apostles only through the man Jesus. 

Thus the writer to the Hebrews says (i. i, 2), 
" God, who at sundry times and in divers manners 
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by Ids Son." 
Remember what has been said, that God, in all 
his dealings with man, spoke and acted solely 
through his Son ; these verses further show that 
the visible person of the Son took the place of all 
the previous outward means of the divine commu- 
nication. 

But this earthly relation of Christ to men could 
be but temporary. He came into the world to be 
more than a mere teacher. He was to do the will 
of his Father, in the flesh, obeying not only all the 
ritual and moral precepts, but fulfilling also the 
divine mandate in relation to his brother-man on 
earth, whom he saw lost in sin, and under sentence 
of both temporal and spiritual death. Man had 
disinherited himself of eternal life, and consequent- 
ly had been forbidden access to its emblem, the 
tree of life. Cast out of Paradise, it had become 
his doom, after a few years of anxiety and toil, to 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 83 

take up his abode with him whose suggestions he 
had adopted, instead of obeying his Maker's com- 
mands. 

The Son saw all this, and gave himself to the 
appointed work of providing redemption for his lost 
brother and his descendants. He met fully the 
demands of the law, which he voluntarily took upon 
himself by becoming the Son of man ; * bore, both 
in soul and body, the heavy burden of man's sin 
and condemnation ; and then his soul, united with 
a glorified body, re-ascended to his native heaven. 
And now in his absence who should be the agent 
of divine communication ? 

Before Christ's baptism there were, as we have 
seen, many visible ways of conveying the Divine 
will. During his ministry he was the only channel, 
or, to use his own words, " the way." But now 
that he has returned into heaven, who is to bring 
to man the knowledge of divine things ? 

Sec. IV. — Personality of the Spirit, the Comforter. 

In answering this question, we give our under- 
standing of the personality of the Spirit, or the 
third person in the Christian Trinity. Our views 
are drawn chiefly from the address of Christ to the 
apostles at the last passover (John xiv.-xvi). 

In this address, spoken after the institution of 
the Supper, he seeks to prepare them for the dark 
and discouraging scene which, unsconciously to 
them, was just before them, when all their hopes 

* See Appendix. 



84 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

and expectations were to be apparently overthrown. 
He explains to them his character as God and 
man, shows them what constituted his divinity, 
and by what power and authority he had performed 
his superhuman works, and tells them, that, though 
he is to leave them, he will yet extend to them a 
watchful care through one whom he calls "the 
Comforter." 

While, however, the name is new, the agent and 
the acting would be the same as before ; namely, 
that of the Father in union with himself. By 
this agency was spiritual instruction to be given in 
all coming time. In order that they and all future 
disciples might have a more distinct and palpable 
object before their minds than they could other- 
wise have, this divine spiritual manifestation he 
now personifies, — u The Comforter." 

Heretofore, the name applied to this divine in- 
fluence had been " the Spirit of God " (Gen. i. 2), 
" the good Spirit " (Neh. ix. 20), " Spirit of the 
prophets " (Neh. ix. 30), " the divine Spirit," " Thy 
Spirit," " Holy Ghost," &c, as before shown. All 
these expressions, and others of like import, could 
refer to but one influence ; and that was God act- 
ing or moving, without any authorized personality 
of those movements. 

But now, when Christ, through whom God since 
the baptism had acted visibly, was to be with- 
drawn, there needed to be prominently before the 
minds of the disciples, in Christ's place, some other 
spiritual instructor, a distinct personal agent. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 85 

Therefore he says, " I will pray the Father, and 
he shall give you another Comforter." Does he 
mean another being like himself ? — one who could 
go in and out with them, as he had done ? No ; 
but he personifies, in the use of this term, the new 
Agent by which they were to be empowered. With 
the apostles the wish would naturally arise to learn 
something more about this promised Helper ; and, 
that Christ might not leave them in anxious doubt, 
he says, " I will come unto you," teaching them 
that in the Comforter he includes himself. Through- 
out this address he impresses upon them the idea, 
that henceforward the Comforter alone is to give 
instruction in heavenly things. 

To impress this more indelibly upon their minds 
and the minds of all future disciples, he conde- 
scended to have this personified agent presented to 
their physical senses. Therefore the Comforter 
was first manifested as a " rushing mighty wind." 
Mark how this is worded. Acts ii. 2, 3, 4 : " Suddenly 
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing 
mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting." Their ears were therefore saluted 
by the approach of this divine agent in his new, 
personified character. He was next manifested to 
another of their senses : " There appeared unto 
them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon 
each of them." " They were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance." 

Here we have three distinct witnesses to the 



86 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

advent of this new Agent : the hearing, the sight, 
and the new power. And as we had a triple tes- 
timony when Jesus was introduced as the sole 
Agent of divine communication to man, so we 
have a similar testimony in these witnesses on the 
introduction of this new agency into his dis- 
pensation. 

It must still be remembered that the divine 
power or influence is just the same as it was in the 
creation, and in every age after. The change is 
only in the dispensation or manner of communica- 
tion ; that is, from the visible Jesus to this invisible 
Agent, the Comforter. 

Now, in this Comforter we find a third person, 
which constitutes a Trinity in the Christian dis- 
pensation. 

It may be asked, Why recognize a person in this 
divine influence now, and not prior to this event, 
when it is claimed to be the same influence as it 
always had been both in and since the creation ? 
The answer is, Because Jesus personified it by 
giving it a new name, the which implies a person ; 
and by calling him another Comforter ; showing 
that this Agent was to succeed him as the only 
divine Teacher. Also he ever after applies to him 
the masculine personal pronouns " he" and " him," 
which we think was never done before. We can- 
not conceive why Jesus should call him anotJier, if 
he had always been a person. 

We should not, now, dare to personify him, did 
we not feel authorized by Christ's words. Up to 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 8/ 

the period of his declarations on this point we find 
no authority for designating this united influence 
of Father and Son as a person. Men have per- 
sonified it and made it an eternal third person in 
the Godhead, but we cannot find their authority. 

We shall say more on this point after we have 
listened to what Christ tells us of this Comforter. 

Sec. V. — Christ's Testimony to the Comforter. 

That there might be no misunderstanding as to 
the " Comforter " whom he now introduces to his 
disciples, he gives them a full and complete expla- 
nation of his person, character, office, and works, 
set forth in the memorable address to which we 
have alluded. It is important that due attention 
be given to these instructions, as they are the only 
information of the kind that we have of this person, 
except what may be gathered from his operations. 
And, as these instructions are in detached para- 
graphs in the above address, they may be better 
understood if viewed connectedly, as follows : — 

John xiv. 16 : "I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, that he may 
abide with you forever." 

Verse 1 7 : " Even the Spirit of truth, whom the 
world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, 
neither knoweth him : but ye know him ; for he 
dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." 

Verse 18 : "I will not leave you comfortless : I 
will come to you." 

Verse 23 : "If a man love me, he will keep my 



88 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

words : and my Father will love him, and we 
will come unto him, and make our abode with 
him! 1 

Verse 25: "These things have I spoken unto 
you, being yet present with you." 

Verse 26 : " But the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Ghost, whom tlie Father will send in my name, 
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things 
to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
you." 

Chap. xv. 26 : " But when the Comforter is come, 
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even 
the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
Father, he shall testify of me." 

Chap. xvi. 7 : "I tell you the truth : it is expedi- 
ent for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, 
the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I 
depart, / will send him unto you!' 

Verse 8 : " And when he is come, he will re- 
prove [or convince] the world of sin, and of right- 
eousness, and of judgment." 

Verse 9 : "Of sin, because they believe not on 
me." 

Verse 10: "Of righteousness, because I go to 
my Father, and ye see me no more." 

Verse 11: "Of judgment, because the prince of 
this world is judged." 

Verse 12 : "I have many things to say unto you ; 
but ye cannot bear them now." 

Verse 13: " Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of 
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : for 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 89 

he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever he 
shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will show 
you things to come." 

Verse 14: "He shall glorify me: for he shall 
receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." 

Verse 15 : "All things that the Father hath are 
mine : therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, 
and shall show it unto you." 

This, in a condensed and consecutive form, is 
Christ's description of the Comforter. Now let us 
analyze it, and see what it contains. 

1. He should come in answer to Christ's prayer. 
" I will pray the Father ; " John xiv. 16. 

2. He should be given by the Father. "And 
He shall give you another Comforter ; " ib. 

3. He should abide with the disciples forever. 
" That he may abide with you forever ; " ib. 

4. He is the Spirit of truth. " Even the Spirit 
of truth ; " v. 1 7. 

5. He would not be seen by the world. "The 
world seeth him not ; " ib. 

6. The world would not know him. "Neither 
knoweth him ; " ib. 

7. He would be known by the disciples. " But 
ye know him ; " ib. 

8. He would dwell with them. " For he dwell- 
eth with you ; " ib. 

9. He would be in them. "And shall be in 
you ; " ib. 

10. In his coming Christ would come to them. 
" I will come to you ; " v. 18. 



90 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ii. In his coming the Father and the Son come 
to the disciples. " We will come and make our 
abode with him ; " v. 23. 

12. He is the Holy Ghost. " But the Comforter, 
which is the Holy Ghost ; " v. 26. 

13. He is sent by the Father in Christ's name. 
" Whom the Father will send in my name ; " ib. 

14. He should teach the disciples all things. 
" He shall teach you all things ; " ib. 

15. He should bring to their remembrance his 
instructions. " And bring to your remembrance 
whatsoever I have said ; " ib. 

16. He should be sent from the Father by 
Christ. "Whom I will send from the Father;" 
xv. 26. 

17. He should proceed from the Father. " Which 
proceedeth from the Father ; " ib. 

18. He should testify of Christ. " He shall 
testify of me;" ib. 

19. He would not come unless Christ should 
depart. " If I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you ; " xvi. 7. 

20. Christ would send him if he departed. " But 
if I depart I will send him unto you;" ib. 

21. He should reprove the world of sin, of 
righteousness, and judgment. " He will reprove 
the world," &c. ; v. 8. 

22. He should guide into all truth. " He shall 
guide you into all truth;" v. 13. 

23. He should show things to come. " He will 
show you things to come ; " ib. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 9 1 

24. He should show the things of the Father, 
for they are the things of Christ. "All things 
that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I 
that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto 
you;" v. 15. 

25. He should show the things of Christ. " He 
shall take of mine and show it unto you ; " ib. 

All this is what Christ tells us of the Com- 
forter. He must therefore possess all the attri- 
butes of the Deity ; for in his coming the Father 
comes. He must possess the nature, sympathies, 
and rational powers of man ; for in the Comfort- 
ers coming, Jesus says repeatedly he would come. 
Therefore, in the coming of the Comforter there 
is really and comprehensively the coming of both 
the Father and the Son. The Comforter, then, 
must be both the Father and the Son acting 
jointly, or, in other words, that same complex Be- 
ing who had performed all the divine works from 
the beginning. 

Thus, we see, the Father and the Son, jointly 
acting, constitute the Comforter ; i. e., the Father 
and Son jointly acting is by the authority of the 
Saviour personified, and thus constituted a person, 
called "another," because he was now and ever 
after to perform his works in this new situation, in 
the place of all the former means and agents of 
divine communication, especially that of the visible 
Son during his ministry, whose visibility was now 
to cease. 

Further, this agent would be empowered to com- 



92 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

municate what no former agent had done, or could 
do, during their agency. His prerogative would be 
to teach the things of Christ ; that is, his character, 
and, more especially, the way of salvation through 
his death and resurrection. 

Another reason, and not the least, for personi- 
fying this new agency was, that this Comforter 
would be in all after ages the principal, if not only, 
acting divine Teacher, as before stated. 

And now, what a Person is brought before us in 
this Comforter ! The God of the universe, the 
Eternal and the Almighty, in union with the be- 
gotten Son, under this new name, or under the 
name of the Holy Ghost or the divine Spirit (the 
particular name is immaterial), comes and makes 
his abode with men forever, expressly to teach 
them the things of his kingdom. 

How fitly is this new ministration of spiritual 
truth introduced! — by a "sound from heaven as 
of a rushing, mighty wind," and by " cloven tongues 
as of fire." The Church now takes an advance 
such as she had never taken before. For more 
than four thousand years she had been creeping, 
in her infancy, through the mist of figure, type, and 
emblem, until their fulfilment in the Messiah. 

During the ministry of John the Baptist, and 
even that of Christ, she was still comparatively in 
the dark as to the nature of Christ's kingdom. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 93 

Sec. VI. — Pentecost, or the Comforters Advent. 

The disciples of that day, though believing him 
to be " the Christ of God," yet understood not his 
errand into the world. It remained for the Com- 
forter, the Holy Ghost, — that is, the Father and 
the Son moving or " coming " together, — to de- 
velop to the Church finally and fully the grand 
principles and doctrines of the gospel. All this 
was accomplished by the descent of the Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost ; and how wonderfully was 
this done ! " It filled all the house where they 
were sitting ; " and the cloven fiery tongues " sat 
on each of them ; and they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost." 

After this great manifestation, we no longer hear 
the disciples saying, " We trusted that it had 
been he which should have redeemed Israel ; " or, 
" Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the 
kingdom to Israel ? " 

It flashed upon them with convincing power, 
that the kingdom which Christ came to establish 
is " not of this world." Peter began at once to 
preach remission of sins through faith in the death 
and resurrection of Jesus. This was the first thor- 
ough gospel sermon ; and three thousand were con- 
verted and baptized before the setting of the sun. 

What a day for the Church ! We could almost 
say it was her birthday. Emerging from so long a 
period of darkness, mist, and twilight, there now 
opens on her the full radiance of a cloudless sun. 



94 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

True, the gospel had been preached to men ever 
since the first interview of Christ with his brother, 
man, in the garden, after the transgression ; very 
dimly at first, but opening gradually with the ages. 

It made some progress under Moses, and far 
greater in the personal ministry of Christ. Al- 
though Jesus preached the gospel, yet it was that 
the kingdom of heaven was at hand. He did not 
and could not, under the circumstances, preach 
salvation through his own death and resurrection, 
unless he did it in prospect ; but now the mystery 
of redemption, hidden for ages, was made clear to 
the understanding by this spiritual Teacher. For 
after Christ's ascension there was still need of a 
personal teacher to whom the disciples might look 
for all necessary spiritual instruction ; and in this 
person, the promised Comforter, this need was 
fully met. 

Let the reader here pause a moment, and con- 
template this person, the Comforter, as he is set 
forth in the teachings of the Saviour : first, the 
Eternal God the Father ; second, his begotten Son 
Jesus Christ ; and third, their joint acting and 
influence, personified as Comforter, or by some 
equivalent name ; and by the Saviour's authority 
constituted a person ; hence being of necessity the 
third person of the Trinity in the economy of 
grace and salvation. Is it difficult to see that 
these three are one ? 

We drop our pen, and contemplating this infi- 
nitely wise and sublime arrangement of mercy, 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. g$ 

our eyes moistening with gratitude, we exclaim 
with Paul, " Oh the depth of the riches both of 
the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How un- 
searchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out ! For who hath known the mind of 
the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ? " 
(Rom. xi. 33, 34.) 

Who, indeed, but Deity, all-wise and all-merciful, 
could have devised a scheme so well adapted to 
glorify his exalted name, and at the same time so 
exactly suited to the wants of finite, fallen man ? 



CHAPTER VII. 

FURTHER TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE 
COMFORTER. 

Sec I. — Johns Trinity. 
Can any fail to see that this is just the Trinity 
introduced by John ? In his first Epistle, v. 7, he 
says, " There are three that bear record in heaven, 
— the Father, the Word [or Logos], and the 
Holy Ghost : and these three are one." He means, 
if we understand him, " There are three in heaven 
that bear record ; " for surely he could not have 
intended to say that the three are bearing rec- 
ord to the inmates of heaven : they need no such 
testimony : it was for men on earth that they were 
designed. The whole context supports this idea. 



g6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

It may help to a clearer understanding of this 
passage, on which so much has been written, if 
we inquire, What is the testimony of these wit- 
nesses ? of what do they bear record ? What, in- 
deed, can it be, but that which John is seeking to 
establish in this whole Epistle, and especially in 
the context ; namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God, and that in him is eternal life. 

To establish this doctrine more firmly, he calls 
in these witnesses, then in heaven, as having 
borne testimony to it at Christ's baptism, — a tes- 
timony which was addressed even to the outward 
senses of men. The Father in an audible voice 
says, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased." The Son stands among them as a 
man, then beginning that ministry during which 
he endeavored to reveal himself as the Son of 
God, and that in him was eternal life. Then, in 
the presence of all, the Spirit alights upon him in 
" bodily shape as a dove." 

Here were the " three witnesses," all of them 
" in heaven " when John wrote, some sixty years 
after their testimonies were given. It is clear, 
too, that the three are one ; for Jesus says that 
he and his Father are one ; and we have seen 
that the Spirit is their combined action, personi- 
fied, and therefore one with the Father and the 
Son. The testimony of the three we have also 
shown to be one. This testimony was given on 
earth ; and the record thereof was on earth when 
John wrote ; and it will remain to the end of time, 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. 97 

bearing witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God, and that in him is eternal life. 

Not, however, until the economy of redemption 
was fully laid open, was it needful, or even proper, 
that this divine agent should be specially desig- 
nated as a person ; for not till then could his new 
lesson of instruction be clearly and fully taught. 
How could the way of salvation through the death 
and resurrection of Christ be clearly taught and 
understood until these events had taken place ? 

Hence it was " expedient," not only for the apos- 
tles, but for all men, that he " should go away," in 
order that the Comforter might come ; and, lest the 
disciples should imagine Him to be some being 
hitherto to them unknown, he tells them that the 
promised Comforter "is the Holy Ghost." 

As if further to guard them against the idea of 
an imaginary mystical being, or some division of a 
being, he declares that the Comforter is the united 
manifestation of the Father and of himself ; say- 
ing, " We will come, and make our abode with you." 
How could the Father and Son come and make 
their abode with the disciples, but by their com- 
bined influence or movement ? And how do they 
now come but by the same influence, which Christ 
calls the Comforter ? It would seem that not a 
word or expression is wanting to make this matter 
clear as is consistent with the brevity of revelation. 

It has been questioned, whether the action of a 
being can be properly so personified as to justify 
the application to it of the personal pronoun "he ; " 
7 



98 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. . 

but would it not remove this doubt if we consider 
that the Comforter was to be henceforth the prom- 
inent divine Teacher, and was clothed with such 
power as to be able to convert three thousand on 
the first day of his manifestation. 

This influence was also to continue' and increase 
till the whole world should be renovated. The 
Comforter was to " convince the world of sin, of 
righteousness, and of judgment." The pronoun 
used fitly expresses this personal agency. 

Sec. II. — Prayer to the Comforter. Analogy of 
Wind, &c. 

Again : it is said that such a view makes it im- 
proper to direct prayer to the Comforter ; for we 
cannot pray to a merely personified action. But 
there is a great difference between a merely person- 
ified action, and that personified action in which 
are incorporated both the Father and Son. Can 
it be improper to pray to such an Agent ? — to One 
in whose coming and influence they both come, as 
Christ said, " We will come" — we, in and through 
our joint working, will "abide with you forever." 

In fact, we cannot pray to any one of the three 
persons without praying to them all. If we pray 
to the Father, we pray to the Son and the Spirit. 
If we pray to the Son, we pray to the Father and 
the Spirit. If we pray to the Spirit, we pray to 
the Father and the Son. We may have either or 
all in our mind : it amounts to the same. 

Here the analogy of the human constitution is 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. 99 

again applicable. We cannot approach a man's 
soul without approaching his body, nor his body 
without including his soul ; yet the two are dis- 
tinct. The soul is not the body, nor the body the 
soul ; but in their union they make one being. 
Apply this principle to prayer to the Father, the 
Son, or the Spirit, and all becomes clear. 

The best emblem, however, of the personification 
of this united agency of the Father and the Son 
is found in the words of Christ to the Jewish 
ruler ; and we desire ever to accept his infallible 
teachings. He compares it to the wind : " The 
wind bloweth where it listeth," &c. (John iii. 8). 
The wind is one of the most powerful agents in 
nature. Its power is seen in uprooting trees, de- 
molishing buildings, &c. But what is the wind ? 
What else but the atmosphere in motion ? There 
is no wind while the atmosphere is still ; it is 
perfectly harmless. But let it be in motion, and 
there is wind ; and according to the velocity of the 
movement there is more or less wind. It is the 
atmosphere moving, therefore, that we seem to 
personify as "wind." But is the wind a person 
because thus personified ? Is wisdom a person be- 
cause Solomon personified it ? On the same princi- 
ple, is God's movement by his Son through the Old 
Testament ages a person because this is sometimes 
personified to make it more clear to our compre- 
hension ? Might we not as properly call the wind 
and wisdom persons because they have been per- 
sonified ? 



100 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

It is difficult to see the propriety or reason for 
denominating any movement of God a person prior 
to the Pentecost. 

But Jesus had authority not only to give his 
Father's movement a significant name, but also to 
constitute it a distinct person, and as such appro- 
priate to him a prominent place in the economy of 
man's redemption. And this he did in that in- 
structive address, at his last passover, saying, " I 
will pray the Father and he shall give you anotJier 
Comforter, that he may abide," &c, applying the 
masculine pronoun ; which, if memory serves us, 
was never done before to God's movement. 

Thus we have in the Comforter, who is "the 
Holy Ghost," the third person in the Trinity of the 
New Testament. 

Sec. III. — The Three Earthly Witnesses. 

From these witnesses in heaven, let us pass to 
those mentioned in the eighth verse : " And there 
are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and 
the water and the blood : and these three agree in 
one." The sixth verse may help us in obtaining 
information concerning these witnesses. 

It reads as follows : " This is he that came by 
water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water 
only, but by water and blood ; and it is the Spirit 
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 
Here we learn who this first witness in earth is, 
viz., the Comforter ;. for Jesus, speaking of the 
Comforter, says, " When he, the Spirit of truth, 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. IOI 

shall come, be shall guide you into all truth " (John 
xvi. 13). 

The first, then, of the earthly witnesses is the 
Spirit of truth, or the Comforter. It will be re- 
membered that the Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, is the 
last-mentioned of the three witnesses in heaven, 
but the first of the earthly three. Why the last 
then, and the first now ? 

Because, when the three witnesses testified at 
Christ's baptism, the Holy Ghost, then appearing 
as a dove, served a merely temporary and inciden- 
tal purpose, and should strictly be classed with 
previous manifestations, such as the horses and 
chariot of fire that carried up Elijah, the pillar of 
cloud and fire that led Israel, the star that guided 
the Magi, and the spirit that taught the prophets. 
All these, with others, were God's special manifes- 
tations for special objects, not connected with any 
distinct personality. 

But on the day of Pentecost this Holy Ghost 
receives not only a new name, but a new assign- 
ment, or official position, viz., to be expressly the 
great divine Teacher on earth. " He shall guide 
you into all truth" said Jesus, implying, " You are 
to have no other divine Teacher : my Father in 
heaven, and I at his right hand, by our influence, 
under the new name of The Comforter, will come 
and make our abode with you, and finally subdue 
the world unto ourselves." 

At the Baptism, then, the manifestation being 
only specific and transient, while after the As- 



102 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

cension the Holy Ghost's relation was to be a 
universal and permanent one, it was proper and 
expressive that the dove (or Spirit) should be men- 
tioned as the last of the witnesses on the former 
occasion, and the first in the latter. 

Again : the manifestation at the Baptism was 
the last of the series of the former class ; but in 
the new dispensation the Spirit was to be pre- 
eminently the Guide and Teacher. Hence at the 
Baptism he would properly stand as the last wit- 
ness ; and the first, when spoken of as connected 
with the new order of things, the Dispensation of 
the Spirit. 

We may appeal to the Church for the correct- 
ness of the conclusion that the Comforter is now 
the sole divine Teacher in spiritual things. What 
does any man know of the kingdom of God, unless 
he is taught by this divine Instructor ? 

We address those who have been " born of the 
Spirit." " The natural man," we know, " receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are 
foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, 
for they are spiritually discerned" (i Cor. ii. 14). 

Every person, therefore, will remain ignorant of 
this kingdom, and, indeed, ignorant of his own 
moral state, until enlightened by the Holy Spirit, 
the Comforter. In vain do we look elsewhere for 
this kind of instruction. Much of God's general 
government may be learned from his word and his 
works ; but we must be taught by the Spirit in 
order to know anything of his spiritual kingdom. 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. 103 

Now, with this idea in mind, let us look at the 
three earthly witnesses. The character of the first 
of these has been noticed ; and he is the principal 
witness, since, as will be seen, the other two wit- 
ness under him. And how does he witness "in 
earth," that is, to men, since witnessing to them is 
the only way he can witness " in earth " ? 

Just as the Saviour said he would : " He shall 
convince of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment." 

Is not this precisely what he has been doing 
ever since the day of Pentecost ? How effectually 
he performed this work on that memorable day ! 
And he has been doing the same down to our 
time. 

He convinces every one to whom he comes of 
sin, showing him to be a condemned sinner, helpless 
in himself, and leading him to say in his heart, if 
not with his lips, " What shall I do ? " Just at 
this point the man is prepared to listen to the 
two other witnesses, — the water and the blood. 
Though two, their testimony is one and the same ; 
for John says, " They agree in one.'' It will be 
remembered that " Christ came, not by water only, 
but by water and blood." The water alone not 
being deemed sufficient, the " blood " is added. 

The water evidently referred to his baptism. 
Though his baptism had nothing to do, intrinsi- 
cally, with our redemption, yet it had its place, — 
first, as an initiation into the church militant ; 
and, secondly, as an emblem of his death. Paul 



104 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

makes it a prominent emblem. u Know ye not 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore 
we are buried with him by baptism into -death" 
(Rom. vi. 3, 4). 

The blood, or the shedding of blood, is the 
death. This is a common use of the word in the 
New Testament. The blood of Christ is his death. 
We have, then, in these two last witnesses, the 
emblem of his death, and the death itself. The 
emblem alone was not sufficient to show his death : 
" not by water only." The " blood," the third wit- 
ness, must confirm the testimony of the emblem ; 
"and these three agree in one," viz., that men have 
broken God's law, and are condemned. This the 
first witness teaches, and, with the help of the 
other two, shows that there is redemption through 
the atonement made by the death of Jesus Christ. 
The first witness, as we have said, is the Teacher ; 
the other two witness under him. He Himself 
shows man his condition, and then, by the other 
two, the way of release. 

"Jesus died, and paid it all, — all the debt I owe." 

Sec. IV. — Combined View of the Six Witnesses. 
Let us dwell a moment longer on these six 
witnesses. The first three proclaim the man Jesus 
to be the Son of God, and then return again into 
heaven. They do not profess to set forth the great 
errand on which he came : that was left for the 
three earthly witnesses. When the work of re- 



TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE COMFORTER. 105 

deraption was completed, this great, final Teacher 
comes, and by and in the last two earthly wit- 
nesses applies the redemptive grace to and in men. 

Does not this seem wonderful ? and the whole 
is the provision of our heavenly Father, that we 
might escape the consequences of transgression. 
None but God could have devised such a plan ; 
and none but the God-man, with the Comforter 
to apply the whole, could have consummated it. 
Again we adopt Paul's language to the Romans : 
" Who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who 
hath been his counsellor ? " 

These verses have been the longer dwelt on, for 
the reason that some writers have clung to the 
seventh as proof of an original Trinity in the 
Godhead. Let the reader turn again to this fifth 
chapter of John's first Epistle, and read from the 
sixth to the thirteenth verse. Notice the object 
of the writer, and see if anything, even a word, 
favors the idea that the apostle was thinking of an 
eternal Trinity in the Godhead. Is he not treating 
wholly of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God 
and the Saviour of men ? Let him judge, too, 
whether our observations do not accord with the 
writer's aim. Can any one believe that he would 
turn aside from his grand object, and carry his 
reader back into an illimitable eternity, and set him 
to scanning a subject which neither he nor any one 
else could understand ? No : his theme was too 
important, and his time too valuable to be thus 
thrown away. 



io6 



BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 



We are well aware that doubts are expressed as 
to the genuineness of these verses, more especially 
the seventh, and that much has been written on 
both sides of the question. But, irrespective of their 
absence in important manuscripts, we believe them 
to be John's writing for the following reasons : — 

i. They are in good keeping with John's usual 
manner of expression. 

2. They form a connection with the preceding 
sixth verse, and with the following ninth, tenth, 
and eleventh verses. 

3. They are just what John needed to establish 
his doctrine ; and we think them most happily and co- 
gently introduced at this very point. What stronger 
testimony could he have ? The eternal God, on two 
occasions, declares Jesus to be his " beloved Son ; ' 
next, the Son, by word and by miracle, asserts this 
title for himself ; then, that the highest number of 
witnesses required by the law might not be wanting, 
the Spirit, in the form of a dove, alights and 
" abides on him." What testimony could be more 
worthy of trust ? John refers to it as of the most 
conclusive character. " If we receive the witness 
of- men, the witness of God is greater." To what 
other witness of God could he refer than the 
above-named ? These witnesses have been, still 
are, and ever will be, essential to the strength of 
the Church ; and neither as a body nor in her in- 
dividual members can she dispense with them. 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. 107 



CHAPTER VIII. 

CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH OF THE 
FOREGOING VIEWS. 

Now what would be the consequences were the 
views which have been advanced to be generally 
accepted ? 

Sec. I. — Would the Church be a Loser f 

First, what would the Church lose, if, surrender- 
ing the idea of an eternal divine Son, she should 
accept the conclusions herein presented ? We 
have carefully examined this question, and cannot 
see that there would be the smallest loss. On the 
contrary, there would seem to be much gain. She 
would still have, as before, her eternal God. She 
would still have a Son of God of the same attributes 
and possessions with God the Father. Would it 
add anything to him if he were eternal ? He was 
begotten of God : God could not beget him a God 
from all eternity. The most He could do would be 
to unite him to Himself. This would place him on 
an equality with Himself; and what more than 
this could the Church have in the Son ? She would 
have a complete Saviour in this Son, who has made 
a perfect atonement for her and for all men if they 
will accept it. She has the Comforter, who is the 
Holy Ghost, including Father and Son, to teach 



108 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the nature and things of the divine kingdom. She 
has a Trinity, perfect, divine, rational, whose ex- 
istence and application she can contemplate with 
pleasure and profit. We cannot see that the posi- 
tion taken conflicts with any of the doctrines of the 
Church essential to the salvation or elevation of 
man. It does not, properly speaking, interfere with 
any of the existing denominational distinctions in 
the Christian church. In fact, it goes far towards 
reconciling them. The Trinitarian can remain 
such, since in every just sense a Trinity is pre- 
served. The Unitarian may still hold to the fullest 
conviction of the Unity of God ; since, according 
to the positions herein set forth, Deity is one and 
tJie same eternally. What evil, then, would follow, 
unless it be an evil to give up long-cherished opin- 
ions which have no basis in the inspired Word ? 

Sec. II. — What would the Church gain f 

On the other hand, what would be gained ? 

First, as remarked by Dr. Watts (" Glory of 
Christ," p. 203), treating on the pre-existence of 
the human soul of Christ. He says, " This doc- 
trine casts a surprising light on many dark pas- 
sages in the word of God : it does very naturally 
and easily explain and reconcile several difficult 
places, both in the Old and New Testaments, 
which are very hard to be accounted for in any 
other way." 

Take, for instance, the first two verses in John's 
Gospel, on which we have commented. The usual 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. IOO, 

interpretation seems to involve this passage in 
needless mystery. The mind involuntarily fixes on 
two beings. There is the Word which " was with 
God." We defy any one to explain this on the 
generally received doctrine of the Son. If the 
Word was God from all eternity, and there was 
also God the Father with whom " the Word was," 
we cannot efface from the mind the idea of two 
Gods. 

Again : take the words of God in the second 
Psalm, to which also we have referred : " Thou art 
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee : ask of 
me," &c. We will suppose at a certain period God 
had begotten or brought into existence the Logos 
or Son ; and he now informs this Son of his origin, 
and his relation to him : we would ask, What words 
could the Father use that would convey this infor- 
mation better and more directly than those recorded 
by the Psalmist ? Look at that short paragraph ; 
how concise and God-like ! — the almighty Father 
addressing this new-born, " only-begotten Son " 
(perhaps, before the union), and declaring to him he 
was his son, and pledging to him a pre-eminence. 
How this harmonizes with the words of Jesus ! — 
" The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all 
things into his hands" (John iii. 35). "For thou 
lovedst me before the foundation of the world" 
(John xvii. 24). 

Now, if there is a doctrine fully supported by 
Scripture, of which it cannot be said, " It is made 
up of mysteries which no one even attempts to 



I IO BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

explain," would it not be gain to the Church to 
adopt this in place of one confessedly mysterious ? 

True, there are mysteries in the kingdom of God 
as well as in Nature. How God united a created 
being with himself, so that both should possess 
the attributes and sympathies of each, we do not 
know, as before said, though we are assured of the 
fact by the testimony of Jesus. The manner in 
these and many other dealings of God is among 
" the secret things which belong to God ; " but 
the facts are among the things revealed, which 
belong to us. 

Again : these views of Christ and of his union 
with the Father bring the doctrine of the Trinity 
within the reach of our faculties. It is no longer 
a mysterious idea beyond our capacity, but a doc- 
trine to be practically apprehended by the believer. 
It will be seen that the unity and personality of 
God the Father are herein strictly maintained 
without any imaginary division of his essence, and 
also the personality of the Son as in himself a dis- 
tinct being. 

It has been shown, also, in what sense personality 
is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. We believe in the 
personality of the three, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost ; and it is easily seen that without mystery 
they are one. 

These are Bible terms ; and our design is to 
follow strictly the obvious intention of the writers 
of the sacred volume. But that book does not 
teach that the three existed in the Godhead from 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. Ill 

all eternity ; that is human theory. On the con- 
trary, it teaches that the Trinity was brought in 
with the completion of the economy of salva- 
tion. 

Further : not the least benefit to be derived from 
these views will be found in the simple, unobstructed 
channel, or " way," as Jesus calls it, to the one 
eternal Jehovah, with no other mediation than that 
of the man Jesus, our elder brother. Since he is 
one with the Father, in approaching him we 
approach the Father, as he tells us in John xiv. 6 : 
" No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." 

How elevating the thought that our facilities of 
access to this Elder Brother so far exceed those of 
the people when he was in the flesh ! 

We need not go to Jerusalem or Nazareth or 
Capernaum, or any other place, to find him ; but 
wherever we are, on land or sea, in the palace or 
in the dungeon, we can come to the same Man to 
whom the leper said, " If thou wilt, thou canst make 
me clean ; " the same from whom virtue went out 
to heal the woman who touched the hem of his 
garment. Yes, to this same Jesus (the only differ- 
ence being that his body is now transformed into a 
spiritual body) we can come as familiarly as any 
who sought him when on earth, and with the advan- 
tage, also, of knowing that in addressing him we 
address the eternal God his Father. 

Is not the thought sublime, that we, imperfect 
creatures, naturally estranged from our beneficent 
Father, are brought near through our Elder Brother 



112 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Jesus, and can hold communion with the Father, 
and tell him all our wants, as really and as readily 
as we could to our natural brother ? Let us keep 
in mind that it is the one eternal God, his and our 
Father, whom we thus approach ; not an eternal 
Son : we know no place for, nor need of such a 
son. We have free and complete access to God 
the Father through our Brother Jesus. What can 
we ask or wish for more ? 

Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, " Go to my 
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father 
and your Father ; to my God and your God " (John 
xx. 17). Here the man Jesus places himself on a 
perfect equality with his disciples. He calls them 
"brethren," and affirms that God was his* Father 
and his God, as really as- He was their Father and 
their God. And, as to his humanity, in itself con- 
sidered, he was on an equality with them, and just 
as dependent ; but we remember that this Brother 
is so 'united to God as to be one with him in so 
close connection, that whatever we say to him we say 
to the infinite Jehovah. The thought seems well- 
nigh overwhelming. We wonder not that we read, 
" When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the 
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God wor- 
ship him ; " for it is plain that in worshipping him 
they would worship the Father in him. Was not 
this a proper demand when this complex person, 
Father and Son united in one, descended from 
heaven, and took upon Him a human body pre- 
pared for Him ? And a suitable tenement it was 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. II3 

for such a personage, — generated by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the blessed virgin. Surely a fit 
incarnation for such a being, in order to dwell with 
men on earth ! 

And now we have in Christ Jesus, not only lit- 
erally what was said by the prophet some seven 
hundred years before the event, " Emmanuel," God 
with us ;• but more, — God one of us. 

Was it strange that at such an advent the angels 
should sing, " Glory to God in the highest, on 
earth peace, good-will towards men " ? Think for 
a moment who this being was, thus announced from 
heaven : no less than the Creator of the world. Is 
it not astonishing, when all this was for man's 
benefit, that he should be so slow to respond to 
such an annunciation ? And how appropriate is 
the language of Isaiah when applied to this per- 
sonage ! — " For unto us a child is born, unto us a 
son is given : and the government shall be upon 
his shoulder : and his name shall be called Won- 
derful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The 
Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" 
(Is. ix. 6). How wonderfully we see all these com- 
bined, literally, in the babe of Bethlehem ! 

But this could not be said of him were he an 
eternal Son. How could such a Son be called 
"The Everlasting Father"} How different was 
Jesus' own teaching ! 

Again : how these views tend to exalt the human 
race! That the Infinite Jehovah should himself be 
united, not " to a divine Son," but to one of our 
8 



114 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

own species, the first-begotten Son ; and coming 
with him into our world, with and in him be united 
to a human body, also of his own begetting, and in 
that body dwell on earth as one of us, — what won- 
derful condescension and mercy ! In view of the 
sublimity of this subject, we can exclaim with the 
apostle, " Great is the mystery of godliness. God 
was manifested in the flesh." * 

Once more. These views effectually undermine 
and completely demolish the arguments mainly 
relied on against the divinity of Jesus Christ : for 
he possessed all that God possessed. This is 
abundantly shown in the New Testament. If 
therefore there is divinity in God, and Christ pos- 
sessed all that is in God, he must possess the same 
divinity. This is one of the principal points of this 
little work, to show that the divinity of the One 
eternal God is the divinity and the only divinity 
of Jesus Christ. Instead therefore of detracting in 
the least from the divine character of the Saviour, 
he is exalted above measure, in that he is made 
equal with God. Therefore " all men should honor 
the Son even as they honor the Father." 

We have aimed to show that the doctrine of an 
eternal divine Son is not found in the Bible. We 
have also aimed to show, from Scripture authority, 
who the Son of God is, and what constitutes his 
divinity. How far we have succeeded, the reader 
must judge. A writer in " The Edinburgh Re- 
view," discussing a certain tenet, says, " Whoever 

* Marginal reading. 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. 115 

finds it in the New Testament must first put it 
there." So say we of the doctrine of an eternal 
divine Son. We know that, like many other 
prevailing opinions, it is imagined to be there ; but, 
from the obvious meaning of the writers of that 
book, we are unable to discover it. 

Sec III. — Views of Dr. Watts and others. 

It is well known that the pre-existence of the 
human soul of Christ is no new doctrine. It was 
taught many centuries ago. When it was first 
promulgated, we are unable to say. It was advo- 
cated by men of high standing in the Church in the 
early part of the eighteenth century. The learned 
and pious Dr. Watts, after much examination, 
embraced and ably defended it. He wrote a special 
work on the subject, entitled " The Glory of 
Christ." He shows from the Scriptures that the 
human soul of Christ actually existed before the 
creation of the world, and that the creating or 
begetting of it was the first act of God of which we 
have any knowledge. He shows, further, that God 
so took this soul of Christ into union with himself, 
that the two beings became in this way one. As 
would naturally happen, we have been led to use, 
in setting forth our views, much the same Scrip- 
tures as those to which he refers. 

But we must be allowed to say that it was more 
than three years after our own mind was settled on 
this subject, that we first learned that Dr. Watts or 
any other person (except one private individual) 



1 16 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ever held such a view. When, providentially, Dr. 
Watts's book fell into our hands, we were surprised 
at the coincidence of our ideas with his concerning 
Christ's pre-existence and union with the Father. 
Eventually we saw that these views conflicted with 
the received doctrine of the Trinity. For, if the 
human soul of Christ was the " first-begotten " 
Son of God, then there could have been no eternal 
first-begotten Son ; and if no eternal Son, there 
could not be an eternal Trinity. After much ex- 
amination, comparing Scripture with Scripture, we 
were compelled to adopt the views herein set 
forth. 

Then, with respect to the third person in the 
Trinity, we found ourselves in a somewhat similar 
embarrassment. We saw that in the Comforter 
Christ had instituted a person, whom he called 
" another? We saw that if there were already 
three persons in the Godhead, and Christ instituted 
another Person under the name of the Comforter, 
then we could not see how to avoid the conclusion 
that there would be a fourth person in the so-called 
Trinity. On diligent search, as in the other cases, 
we could find no scriptural ground for believing in 
an eternal third person in the Godhead ; or in any 
third, person at all, before the coming of the Com- 
forter. There had been, indeed, various manifes- 
tations of God ; but we could see no propriety ir 
attributing to them a personality. We were 
obliged to abandon the idea of an eternal Son, also 
that of an eternal third person, and be content with 



CONSEQUENCES TO THE CHURCH. 11/ 

the teachings of the sacred volume. We find in 
this all that man needs. 

A word more about Dr. Watts. We could not 
learn that he ever relinquished the doctrine of an 
eternal Son in the Godhead. Yet he must have 
seen that his views of Christ's pre-existence were 
in direct conflict with that doctrine ; for, if the 
created human soul of Christ was the Logos who 
was with the Father at the beginning, and was the 
Son by whom God made the worlds, he could not 
be an eternal Son ; and if there was no eternal Son, 
then there was no eternal Trinity. 

That, we think, was his difficulty. He had taught 
the common doctrine of the Trinity in prose and 
song. He also very clearly and scripturally advo- 
cated the other doctrine as to the nature of Christ. 
The two doctrines, of course, could not both be 
true ; and yet he stood as the advocate of both. 
It is not to be wondered at that, as some have 
said, "his mind was unsettled." 

The Unitarians claimed him as having given up 
Trinitarianism and embraced their views. On the 
other hand, it was said he had relinquished his 
views with regard to the pre-existence of Christ's 
humanity. Rev. S. Palmer, the author of Memoirs 
of W T atts and Doddridge, who claimed to possess 
his latest writings, denies this report, showing the 
contrary from documents of Dr. Watts. The prob- 
ability is, that he was re-examining the whole sub- 
ject when his Master called him up higher. 

We have no evidence that what we have sug- 



Il8 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

gested were the difficulties in the doctor's mind ; 
but it is quite evident that in his latter days he 
was troubled on these points : and that he should 
have been so is not surprising. The impassioned 
prayer found among his papers after his decease, 
showed the state of his mind. We well remember 
the morass we had to wade through when com- 
pelled to give up a doctrine cherished as funda- 
mental in the evangelic Church, and one to which 
we subscribed when uniting with the church mili- 
tant. But we had pledged ourselves to follow the 
Saviour in our doctrinal views as well as in practice, 
so far as we could understand his teachings ; and 
this we trust we have done. Accordingly, we gave 
up the doctrine of an eternal divine Son ; also that 
of an eternal third person ; and consequently, that 
of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, whether 
real or supposed. In place thereof, we accept a 
present, active, comprehensible Trinity, such as 
the Saviour and the apostles appear to us to 
present, — a Trinity which finds its final and com- 
plete expression in the person and work of the 
Comforter. This is a Trinity which we can not 
only understand, but whose value and power we 
can feel, — a Trinity of practical use to man. 

Several eminent divines, about the time of Dr. 
Watts, embraced the doctrine of the pre-existence 
of Christ's human soul ; but that any one of them 
took the ground that there was no Trinity in the 
Godhead, we could not learn. This latter seemed 
to be too near Arianism and modern Unitarianism 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I IQ 

to be accepted. Though this pre-existence was 
firmly believed by some of the most pious and able 
divines to be a doctrine of the Bible, it was allowed 
for the time to sink into neglect. 

The learned and pious Bishop Fowler of Glouces- 
ter said, in a treatise on the pre-existence of Christ's 
humanity, (i There is no Christian doctrine more 
clearly delivered than this, and even by the Saviour 
himself, and often repeated by him ; and there is 
not more plain and undeniable evidence for any one 
article of faith than for this doctrine ; and that this 
is the sense in which, most certainly, the disciples 
of our Lord understood his declarations." Can 
any one examine the teachings of the Saviour and 
the writings of the apostles on this point, and come 
to any different conclusion ? 



CHAPTER IX. 
ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 

Sec. I. — Point at Issue. 

We now call attention to several passages of 
Scripture, most of which have not been quoted in 
these pages, but which have a direct bearing on 
the subjects under consideration ; and, that the 
force both of the passages themselves and of our 
remarks upon them may be more distinctly seen, 



120 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

we will state what we understand to be the com- 
mon doctrines of the evangelical Church on these 
points, adducing in contrast therewith our own 
views. 

We understand the long-cherished doctrines of 
the Church to be these : First, that the Supreme 
God is one eternal, underived being. Second, that 
He exists in three persons (or manifestations or 
distinctions ; for herein there is diversity of opin- 
ion ; though all claim that, in some sense, he is 
three, viz., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) ; and that 
these three, all equally eternal, constitute his being, 
and are the first, second, and third persons in a 
divine Trinity. Third, that about four thousand 
years after the creation, the Father sent this divine 
Son to earth, where he united himself with Jesus, 
the babe of Bethlehem ; and that this union of the 
eternal Son with the human child made the child 
divine, and constituted the Christ. Not that it 
transformed the humanity of Jesus into divinity, 
but constituted him divine as well as human. 

Such is the general belief ; though some who 
are reputed orthodox may partially dissent. 

It will now be attempted to show that there is 
no evidence that the sacred writers held or de- 
signed to teach the idea of an eternal divine Son, 
or an eternal Trinity, or any "third person -in the 
Trinity " at all, until the Comforter, promised by 
Jesus, was manifested at Pentecost ; but rather 
that these writers set forth a human Son made di- 
vine by union with his Father, and a Trinity of the 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 121 

Father, the human-divine Son, and the Holy Spirit 
as personified " the Comforter " after Christ's as- 
cension. 

A word further before proceeding with our quo- 
tations. We do not consider that a belief in either 
of these schemes of doctrine is essential to salva- 
tion, or that clearly-defined views as to the charac- 
ter and atonement of Christ are indispensable in 
order to enter into life. Cornelius, evidently, had 
no distinct views of Christ as a Saviour ; yet 
he was undoubtedly a pious man, and an heir of 
heaven, before Peter preached to him the way of 
redemption through Christ. The eloquent Apollos 
was unquestionably a Christian, before Aquila 
and Pris cilia " expounded to him the way of God 
more perfectly." Very few Christians have an 
understanding of the plan of redemption, when 
first adopted into the family of God, It is a cause 
of gratitude that the way of eternal life is level to 
the capacity of every person. It is simply to re- 
pent and to accept the offered Saviour. 

Sec. II. — John the Harbinger, and Christ with 
Nicodemus. 

To examine the testimony of Scripture, it is not 
necessary to quote the passages consecutively as 
they stand in the New Testament. 

John i. 15 : John [the harbinger] bare witness 
of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I 
spake, He that cometh after me is preferred be- 
fore me : for he was before me! y (See also the 



122 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

30th verse.) Then in verse 18, before referred to, 
he says, " No man hath seen God at any time ; 
the only-begotten Son, which is [or was, as ex- 
plained by some] in the bosom of the Father, he 
hath declared him." He says further (verses 32, 
34), " I saw the Spirit descending from heaven 
like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I saw 
and bare record that this is the Son of God." 
On whom did the Spirit abide ? Was it not on 
the man Jesus, whom John had just baptized ? 
And was it not that same man of whom John bears 
record " that this is the Son of God " ? Should 
any one say that John in these verses refers to a 
divine Son united with the man Jesus, we beg to 
ask him where he gets this information. To the 
same purport is verse 36, where John, looking 
upon the man Jesus as he walked, saith, " Behold 
the Lamb of God ! " 

Again : in the memorable conversation with 
Nicodemus, in the third chapter of this Gospel, 
Jesus says (verse 13), "No man hath ascended up 
to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of man > which is in heaven." Sev- 
eral writers have seized on the clause, " The Son 
of man which is in heaven" as proof of the inde- 
pendent divinity of Christ, arguing that, as a man 
on earth, he could not be in heaven at the same 
time, and that he must therefore refer to his divine 
nature, in which, as God, he fills immensity, and 
can thus be at once both in heaven and on earth. 
It may be remarked that the divinity of Jesus, 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 123 

which is all along admitted, yea, insisted on, would 
give him omnipresence, as well as all power, and 
all attributes of God ; but that this implies inhe- 
rent, or independent divinity, is quite another 
thing. 

But do not these writers forget that it is the Son 
of man who is said to be in heaven, and that this 
title always includes the humanity, and generally 
means the humanity alone? 

Further : in the eighteenth verse of the first 
chapter, just quoted, the harbinger calls this Son 
of man "the only-begotten Son ; " and it has been 
already shown that the only-begotten Son was that 
human soul which was "the beginning of the cre- 
ation of God." The name " Son of man," here 
given him, seems to confirm this position. Now, 
if the phrase " is in heaven " may, as some main- 
tain, properly read "was in heaven," the sense is 
clear. The context and natural import favor this 
rendering. 

This thirteenth verse is evidently a confirmation 
of what was said in the eleventh, " We speak that 
we do know, and testify that we have seen." Now, 
to justify this declaration, Jesus says to his inquirer 
that no man on earth, except himself, could declare 
what he had seen and heard in heaven ; for the rea- 
son that no other man had been there. 

It will be remembered that Nicodemus, from the 
first, recognized him as " a teacher come from God." 
Jesus talks with him as a man to a man, and uses 
his common title, the " Son of man." We do not 



124 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

suppose he understood exactly how Jesus was a 
teacher come from God, though he believed it was 
so : yet we insist that the words of Christ very 
clearly explained to him the fact. The Son of man, 
the person then talking with him, had been in 
heaven, had come down thence, had assumed the 
human body, and in that body was now telling him 
what he had seen and heard in the heavenly world. 
He only could give such testimony. Is not this 
the natural import of the language which he uses ? 

We have also in this third chapter further testi- 
mony of Christ, from John the Baptist. Let the 
reader turn to this chapter, and read from the 
twenty-seventh verse to the end, that he may be 
the better prepared to judge of the correctness of 
our remarks on some of these verses. " He that 
cometh from above is above all : he that is of the 
earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth : he that 
cometh from heaven is above all. And what he 
hath seen and heard, that he testifieth " (verses 31, 
32). We have before referred to this passage, but 
adduce it here as intimately connected with the 
whole paragraph to which we are calling attention. 
Its close agreement with the above-quoted declara- 
tions of Christ to Nicodemus will not escape notice. 
Both speak of what the Son of man saw and heard 
in heaven. 

Here, and in several of the preceding and follow- 
ing verses, the harbinger is evidently showing the 
contrast between himself and Christ as two men. 
He was "of the earth," that is, born only here. 






ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 12$ 

" He that cometh from above/' that is, begotten or 
born in heaven, and come down to earth, " is above 
all." He can tell what he saw and heard before he 
left heaven. 

We quote also verses 34, 35 : "For he whom 
God hath sent speaketh the words of God : for 
God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all 
things into his hand." Let the reader carefully 
ponder these verses, comparing the last two with 
those just before cited, and then judge for himself 
whether the following remarks are well founded. 

We have said that it involves, if not impropriety, 
at least confusion of thought, to speak of God the 
Father as sending God the Son. And how could 
it be said that God the Father giveth not to God 
the Son the Spirit by measure ; that is, by limit ? 
Would not the Son, if inherently God, " of the same 
essence as the Father," have always possessed 
the same measure of the Spirit as the Father ? 
How, then, is the Spirit given at all, if the alleged 
receiver already has all that the giver possesses ? 
Does not the expression, " giveth the Spirit," neces- 
sarily convey the idea of two distinct beings, one 
bestowing and the other receiving ? Can we pos- 
sibly get any other idea from the expression ? This 
passage accordingly represents the Son as destitute 
of the Spirit, except as bestowed on him by the 
Father, and agrees with what Christ declared, that 
" the Son can do nothing of himself," showing that 



126 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

he was impotent as to any divine power, save as he 
received it from the omnipotent Father. 

Here, again, we see how well John the harbin- 
ger and Christ agree. John declared, "God giveth 
not the Spirit by measure unto him." Christ says, 
" All mine are thine, and thine are mine " (John 
xvii. io) ; and, " All power is given unto me in 
heaven and in earth" (Matt, xxviii. 18). John says 
again (verse 35), "The Father loveth the Son, and 
hath given all things into his hand." What meaning 
is there in this, if applied to God the Father and a 
Son in himself divine ? — God the Father loving 
God the Son, of the same essence with himself. 
God loves God, — the Being loving and the Being 
loved the same : this would indeed be mystery. 
On this ground, why not with all propriety reverse 
the order, and say, " God the Son loveth God the 
Father, and hath given all things into his hand " ? 
Both, in the supposition, are literally and abso- 
luely God ; neither, then, is superior or inferior. 
Otherwise they form two beings ; in which case 
one could not be - in himself God. If this be ad- 
mitted, the belief in an eternal divine Son at once 
disappears. 

If the reader will take the language of Nicode- 
mus as literally true, that the man Christ was a 
" teacher come from God ; " if he will allow that 
God, literally his Father, took the Son into union 
with himself, dwelt in him on earth, and worked 
with and through him his mighty works, — he will 
find all the above-quoted passages, and the prayer 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. \2*J 

in the seventeenth of John, natural and easily 
understood. 

Sec. III. — John v. 23 ; vi. 46. 

John v. 23 : " That all men should honor the 
Son, even as they honor the Father. He that hon- 
oreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which 
hath sent him." This passage is often adduced in 
proof of Christ's inherent divinity. The argument 
is, that, "as the Son is of the same essence as the 
Father, he of course deserves equal honor." The 
passage certainly is evidence of divinity in Christ ; 
but is it evidence of inherent divinity ? Does such 
an idea accord with the other teachings of Christ ? 
Does he not often assert the inferior position of the 
Son, and that the ground of his superiority lies in 
his union with the Father ? — not with a divine 
Son, but "the Father that dwelleth in me," as 
though he would say again, " I and my Father are 
one." This is the reason why " all men should 
honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," and 
why w he that honoreth not the Son honoreth not 
the Father." The thought is, that the way to 
honor God is to honor him in Christ. In the im- 
mediately preceding verse he says, " The Father 
judge th no man, but hath committed all judgment 
unto the Son," showing that the Father author- 
izes and empowers the Son. Paul in his speech at 
Athens says, " God hath appointed a day, in the 
which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
that man whom he hath ordained." Was not " that 



128 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

man," thus referred to, the Son, to whom God 
" hath committed judgment, and whom all should 
honor even as they honor the Father" ? If it was 
an eternal divine Son, Paul makes a most serious 
mistake in calling him a " man." Take, however, 
Jesus' own words, " I am in the Father, and the 
Father in me," and grant that the two, by virtue of 
this union, are one, and there is no discrepancy be- 
tween him and Paul, and no difficulty in under- 
standing them. 

Yes : it was " that man," our Elder Brother, and 
your brother, dear reader, if you have faith in him, 
to whom all judgment has been committed ; and 
Paul was right in telling the Athenians that they, 
with all the rest of the world, were to be judged by 
" that man whom He hath ordained." How con- 
soling the thought that our Brother, who is also our 
Redeemer, is to be our Judge ! Whom else could 
we desire ? 

John vi. 46 : " Not that any man hath seen the 
Father, save he which is of God : he hath seen the 
Father." Christ here speaks of himself as a man 
like other men ; and we detect no reference to a 
divine nature ; no man (and he speaks of men gen- 
erally) save himself alone, who is directly, soul and 
body, of God. Now, it is certain that neither he 
nor any other man could see God by natural vision ; 
for " God is a Spirit ; " and spirit can be seen by 
no bodily eye. Jesus, then, in order to have seen 
the Father, must have existed as a man in a differ- 
ent state from that in which he then was ; and 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 120, 

what could it have been but his pre-existent state ? 
We claim this to be a fair deduction from the 
premises. Alone it may not be conclusive ; but in 
connection with so many similar passages, and in 
the absence of a single item of evidence to the con- 
trary, it would seem to be a strong confirmation of 
the view. 

This passage harmonizes with, and helps to ex- 
plain, Christ's words to Nicodemus, "We speak 
that we do know, and testify that we have seen!' 
In each instance he speaks as a man. Then, too, 
the expression " He which is of God " implies deri- 
vation from God, and is inapplicable to a divine 
Son unless we allow, which we cannot, an " eternal 
generation." 

Sec. IV. — The Bread from Heaven. 

John vi. 5 1 : "I am the living bread which came 
down from heaven : if any man eat of this bread, 
he shall live forever : and the bread that I will give is 
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 

This was spoken in the discourse at Capernaum, 
from which the last-mentioned quotation was made. 
Many of the disciples said, " It is a hard saying ; " 
and the Jews objected, " How can this man give us 
his flesh to eat ? " 

The term " flesh " in Scripture has a variety of 
meanings. It often signifies humanity, or man, as 
including both soul and body. This seems to be 
the meaning in the passage under consideration. 
In giving his " flesh ... for the life of the world," 



130 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

our Lord doubtless means that he would yield up 
his entire humanity, his soul and body, to bear 
the penalty of the divine law, for man's salva- 
tion. Now, by employing together the two figures, 
" flesh " and " bread " (or " manna "), our Lord rep- 
resents what neither of these figures would express 
alone. The " flesh," as already said, points to the 
body and the soul of Christ, both of which were 
necessary in making a perfect offering, a complete 
atonement. " Thou shalt make his soul an offering 
for sin " (Isa. liii. 10). " A body hast thou prepared 
me" (Heb. x. 5). Now, as the body of Christ did 
not come down from heaven, though his soul did, 
the term " flesh " would not be the suitable one to 
express the idea of Christ's pre-existence. That 
would imply that body, as well as soul, had been in 
heaven. Hence the expression " bread [or " man- 
na "] which came down from heaven " was used, as 
fitly declaring that the soul alone, the human soul 
of Christ, came down from heaven. 

And to express the whole truth, — that is, both 
that Christ, as to his soul, came from heaven, and 
that he suffered and died in the body, — these 
two figurative expressions, " bread " and " flesh," 
are used together : " the bread that I will give is 
my flesh." 

It was, then, the voluntary act of the humanity 
of Christ thus to come from heaven, to give him- 
self for the life of the world. Hence they must eat 
his flesh, and drink his blood (which is the life: 
Gen. ix. 4) ; that is, in order to possess eternal 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 131 

life, they must appropriate by faith the benefits 
purchased by his death. Neither his disciples nor 
the Jews understood him ; how could they ? for 
he was referring to the way of salvation through, 
the atonement, which was not then completed. He 
sought to explain it to the disciples : but not till 
the day of Pentecost, when the new Teacher came 
and "guided them into all truth," was the matter 
made clear to them. 

The whole discourse teaches us that in Christ 
alone is eternal life. The manna given to the 
Israelites was the emblem of this life. As the 
manna seemed to come from the visible heavens, 
so he (i. e., his humanity, in union with the Father, 
the spiritual manna or bread) came down from the 
true heaven to give life to the world. 



Sec. V. — Further Testimony of 

John vii. 28, 29 : " Ye both know me, and ye 
know whence I am : and I am not come of my- 
self, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know 
not. But I know him: for I am from him, and 
he sent me." 

Let the reader consider well these verses, and 
then say if the language would naturally be used 
in relating a transaction between God the Father 
and a God the Son, of the same identical essence 
and will. Does not the whole representation point 
clearly to two beings with distinct wills ? Especially 
the last declaration, " I am from him, and he sent 
me : " if this expression, in connection with the 



132 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

many others quoted, does not indicate two beings 
and two wills, then we do not understand the 
force of words. We think, too, that any attempt to 
turn these passages from their plain and obvious 
meaning is an unwarranted use of the sacred 
writings. 

John viii. 14, 23 : "For I know whence I came, 
and whither I go ; but ye cannot tell whence I 
come, and whither I go." 

" Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye 
are of this world ; I am not of this world." 

Were these declarations intended to convey the 
idea of a divine, eternal Son ? If we include such a 
Son here, what shall we do in the following twenty- 
eighth verse ? — where he says, " When ye have 
lifted up the Sou of man, then shall ye know that 
I am he ; " that is, " I am this Son of man who 
was from above," who adds, " I do nothing of my- 
self ; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak 
these things." If a divine Son is included here 
(we say it reverently), he is represented as a very 
inefficient being. He is impotent, can do nothing 
of himself. The far-fetched comment, that as the 
divine Son is of the same essence as the Father, 
he can do nothing separately from the Father, is 
an exposition of these and similar passages which 
fails to commend itself. The context and all 
Christ's teachings on this point preclude such an 
interpretation. The tenor of these passages taken 
together goes to show the inability of the person 
speaking to do anything of himself. He must be 






ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 133 

taught by the Father even what to speak. He did 
not come into the world of himself, but was sent, 
as verse 42 shows. 

Again : John xii. 49 : " For I have not spoken 
of myself ; but the Father which sent me, he gave 
me a commandment, what I should say, and what 
I should speak." Here is the same idea fully 
developed. Whoever is the speaker using this 
pronoun of the first person, he represents himself 
as altogether inferior to the Father, and subject 
entirely to his direction and control. Even if we 
suppose that the man Jesus, according to the com- 
mon doctrine, was united to a divine Son, and, in 
all these passages, includes in himself the divine 
and the human, would not this seem a very im- 
proper use of language for the purpose ? Would 
it not lead his hearers to think of him as another 
being, inferior to the Father ? Does it not convey 
that idea to us ? 

John xiii. 3, 4 : " Jesus knowing that the Father 
had given all things into his hands, and that he 
was come from God, and went to God ; he riseth 
from supper," &c. What can be the meaning of 
these words of John, unless they apply to the soul 
of Christ ? Jesus was his human name, which in 
itself did not necessarily include the divine nature. 
There were many of that name among the Jews : 
in their language the name was " Joshua," a favor- 
ite name in all the tribes. It was the man Jesus 
who " went to God " from Mount Olivet ; and was 
not this the same man that "came from God" ? 



134 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

He ascended in the same body which he took upon 
him at his birth in Bethlehem, this having been 
glorified, or transformed into a spiritual body from 
the morning of the Resurrection. But on special 
occasions, as when showing himself at different 
times to the disciples, he reassumed the visible, 
material body. 

Does the name Jesus above include a divine 
Son ? If so, it shows him to be dependent on and 
inferior to his Father, and receiving all he pos- 
sessed from his Father. If the name includes 
only the humanity, then it was the humanity, and 
that only, that came from God. 

In short, we cannot find, from anything that 
John says of Christ here or elsewhere, that he 
ever thought of him as united to an eternal divine 
Son. He makes his divinity consist in his union 
with the Father. He seems to us to have clearly 
understood this, and to have written with this 
thought in his mind. The other apostles appear 
to have had a similar understanding. We cannot 
doubt that the primitive disciples generally held 
the same view, so far as they had knowledge of 
Christ. 

John xiv. 24, 28 : " And the word which ye hear 
is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." 

" If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I 
said, I go unto the Father : for my Father is 
greater than I." 

We will not detain attention • long on these 
verses. If the reader can understand the pro- 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. . 1 35 

nouns "me," "I," and "my," here -applied by Jesus 
to himself, as including an eternal Son equal to 
the Father, his capacity far exceeds ours. If lan- 
guage can be used to represent two beings, the 
one subordinate to the other, this language is 
certainly so used. If Jesus had said, " God who 
dwelleth in me is greater than I," whether it were 
the Father or the Son, no one would have doubted 
that the word " I " included only the humanity ; 
and, if a divine Son was united to him, why did 
not Jesus say, " The Son who dwelleth in me is 
greater than I " ? If there was such a Son, why 
is there not some allusion to him in Christ's 
preaching ? 

We must remind the reader not to mistake our 
position with regard to Christ, lest he suspect us 
of lowering the view of his character. We believe 
him to be verily God, and verily man, — man as 
to his human soul, begotten by the Father, and 
also as to his body, which was born of a woman ; 
and God by virtue of a special union with his 
Father such as to make them one. The word 
Christ (the Anointed) includes both the Father 
and the begotten human soul, or God and man ; 
and the begetting and union were before the ere* 
ation of the world. " In the fullness of time " this 
complex being took a human body. Let the reader 
keep in mind these cardinal ideas while we pro- 
ceed to notice a few additional passages. 

John xv. 24 : " If I had not done among them 
the works which none other man did, they had 



I36 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

not had sin ; but now have they both seen and 
hated both me and my Father." 

If the man Jesus wrought his miraculous works 
by the aid of a divine Son, how had they seen and 
hated his Father ? In that case they would have 
seen and hated Jesus and the divine Son ; for what 
they saw of God was in his works through Jesus : 
and would not Jesus rather have said, " they have 
seen and hated both me and the Son " ? 

John xvi. 27, 28 : " For the Father himself loveth 
you, because ye loved me, and have believed that I 
came out from God." 

" I came forth from the Father, and am come 
into the world : again, I leave the world, and go to 
the Father." The disciples then said, " By this we 
believe that thou earnest forth from God." 

Can any one suppose that the disciples under- 
stood that it was a divine Son who came forth from 
God and united himself with the man Jesus ? Was 
it Christ's intention that they should so understand 
him ? 

Sec. VI. — The First-born. 

Col. i. 15—19 : " Who is the image of the invis- 
ible God, the first-born of every creature : for by 
him were all things created, that are in heaven and 
in earth : ... all things were created by him, and 
for him : and he is before all things, and by him all 
things consist. . . . Who is the beginning, the first- 
born from the dead ; that in all things he might 
have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 37 

that in him should all fullness dwell." Here again, 
we see a confirmation of John the harbinger's 
expression, and from him we learn how the Son 
obtained this fullness : his words are, " God giveth 
not the Spirit by measure unto him." 

The passage under consideration has already 
been examined in part, for a special purpose ; but 
we wish now more fully to call attention to it. 

This portion of the chapter is often cited as 
evidence of Christ's divinity ; and, in our view, it 
does, along with other scriptures, place that doc- 
trine beyond controversy. But, quite generally, 
we believe, it is made to apply to a divine Son, 
united with the man Jesus, and called the second 
person in the Godhead. It is this reference to an 
eternal Son that we call in question. It is not easy 
to see how the pronouns and other expressions here 
used can apply to such a Son. The clause, " He 
was before all things," harmonizes with what has 
been before said on John i. i. Indeed, Paul, in 
these five verses of the Epistle to the Colossians, as 
well as in other places, agrees perfectly with the ex- 
planation which has been given of the first eighteen 
verses of John's Gospel (see page 21). The decla- 
ration that " he was the first-born from the dead " 
certainly applies exclusively to the man Jesus, for 
divinity cannot die ; and is not this the same per- 
son as " the first-born of every creature," to whom 
belongs the pre-eminence in all things, of which 
Paul speaks ? How natural and rational this pas- 



I38 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

sage seems, viewed from the position herein main- 
tained ! 

Heb. i. 6 : " When he bringeth in the first-begot- 
ten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels 
of God worship him." 

This harmonizes with the above ; and our only 
comment shall be the language of the second 
Psalm, " Thou art my Son : this day have I be- 
gotten thee." Do not the terms " first-begotten " 
and " begotten," in these two places, refer to the 
same person ? and does not the Psalmist declare a 
period when he was begotten ? Were the common 
theory correct, should not the Psalmist have writ- 
ten, " From eternity have I begotten thee " ? 

1 Tim. iii. 16: "Without controversy, great is 
the mystery of godliness : God was manifest [man- 
ifested] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of 
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in 
the world, received up into glory." 

The best explanation of this verse is Christ's 
answer to Philip, John xiv. 9-1 1 : "Jesus saith 
unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and 
yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that 
hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how say- 
est thou then, Shew us the Father ? 

" Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and 
the Father in me ? The words that I speak unto 
you, I speak not of myself : but the Father, that 
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 

" Believe me that I am in the Father, and the 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 39 

Father in me : or else believe me for the very 
works' sake." 

Sec. VII. — The Son's Life is of the Father. 

John v. 26, 27 : " For as the Father hath life in 
himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in 
himself ; and hath given him authority to execute 
judgment also, because he is the Son of man." 

" I can of mine own self do nothing : as I hear, 
I judge : and my judgment is just ; because I seek 
not mine own will, but the will of the Father which 
hath sent me." 

We must confess we see not how this passage 
can be so construed as to favor the generally re- 
ceived views of the Son of God. All will agree 
that the Son here mentioned is the Son of God. 
What, then, we ask, is the life which the Father 
hath in himself? It is answered, " Underived, 
eternal life." 

It follows, then, that there was a period when 
the Son did not possess this life ; for, had he al- 
ways possessed it, the Father could not have given 
it to him. This life the Father gives to the Son 
so that he shall possess it as really and completely 
as Himself. Hence the eternal life which the Son 
had in himself must have been derived from the 
Father. Union with the Father would impart this, 
and with this all other things. " All things that 
the Father hath are mine" (John vi. 15). "All 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth " 
(Matt, xxviii. 18). 



140 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

In the above verses, again, two distinct beings 
are presented, each with his own will, the Father 
and the Son ; the Son inferior and subject to the 
Father, receiving from him eternal life, and author- 
ity to execute judgment, " because he is the Son of 
man." 

This same Son, acknowledged by all to be the 
Son of God, says (verse 30), " I can of mine own self 
do nothing : as I hear, I judge : and my judgment is 
just ; because I seek not mine otvn will, but the will 
of the Father which hath sent me." It may be 
said, " The divine Son, being God, can do nothing 
separately from God the Father ; " but, the added 
words, "as I hear, I judge," show this explanation 
to be erroneous. If he was of himself divine, from 
whom did he hear ? 

Matt. iii. 17 : "This is my beloved Son, in whom 
I am well pleased." To whom would John and the 
bystanders suppose this communication from hea- 
ven was intended to refer ? Was it not to the man 
whom John had just baptized? So also in the 
case of the similar declaration when Jesus was 
transfigured. Was there anything in either of 
these announcements which would lead the hearer 
to think of an eternal divine Son ? There was in 
both a manifestation of the living God ; but it came 
from the Father, of whom Jesus speaks as dwelling 
in him. 

Can any one see in the above any Son other 
than the man Jesus, the only-begotten Son ? 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I4I 

Sec. VIII. — The Sons Efficiency that of the 
Father. Formula of Baptism. 

2 Cor. v. 19: "To wit, that God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing 
their trespasses unto them." 

Note, Paul says, " God was in Christ ; " and this 
God, he repeatedly tells us, is " the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." In this he agrees with Christ, 
who often impressed on his hearers the great truth 
that the Father was in him. But never does he 
thus speak of a divine Son ; and never does Paul 
thus speak. Paul often refers to God the Father 
and to the Lord Jesus Christ as two beings. Rom. 
i. 7 : " Grace to you and peace from God our Father, 
and the Lord Jesus Christ," is an example. These 
salutations and benedictions were, for a while, un- 
intelligible to us. We could not see why he should 
make such a distinction between the Father and 
the Son ; for we supposed the Son to be inherent- 
ly God as well as the Father. But, when we came 
to understand that they were really two beings, 
who, though united, could be distinguished individ- 
ually, our perplexity vanished. The benediction in 
the second letter to the Corinthians, in which the 
three persons in the New Testament Trinity are 
introduced, then became clear. Yet this benedic- 
tion is often cited as proof of an eternal Trinity. 

But it must not be forgotten that Christ had 
established the Christian Trinity nearly thirty years 
previous to Paul's writing that letter, at the time 



142 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

when he promised the disciples that " another Com- 
forter " should come after he should have been 
glorified. When, therefore, according to promise, 
He came on the day of Pentecost, the Trinity was 
completed ; and since the Trinity was comprised 
in the Comforter, who, as before shown, was to be 
thereafter the grand spiritual Teacher, how appro- 
priate that He should be recognized in His full 
character, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by the 
apostles and all subsequent religious teachers ! 

When the three thousand were converted and 
made heirs of eternal glory by the operation of 
these persons in the Comforter on the occasion of 
his advent in his new position, how appropriate 
that these disciples should be baptized in the full 
name of this Trinity, thus recognizing each and all 
the divine agents by whom their spiritual transfor- 
mation had been accomplished. Hence, in the 
formula of baptism appointed by Christ to be ob- 
served in all coming ages, the importance of using 
the names of the three persons composing this 
Trinity in the Comforter, in order to set forth the 
co-operation of the three in man's salvation. 

And how could the apostles, when writing to the 
churches, do less than call the attention of the 
Christians, who had just emerged from heathen 
darkness, to this Trinity, especially having them- 
selves made such advancement in the knowledge 
of Christ's kingdom through the teaching of this 
same agency ? It would naturally be their aim to 
introduce this subject on all proper occasions ; and 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I43 

hence we find it so generally brought forward in 
their letters. 

Sec. IX. — Oneness of Christ with the Father. 

Phil. ii. 5-1 1 : " Let this mind be in you, which 
was also in Christ Jesus : who, being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God," &c. This is also one of the passages con- 
fidently relied on to prove the inherent divinity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. Doubtless it does im- 
ply his divine character. But does it teach a native 
divinity ? Does it not rather look towards a de- 
rived divinity ? " Being in the form of God." But, 
if he were eternal, and of the very essence of the 
Father, he would in himself be God. How does 
it strike the mind to say that God was in the form 
of God ? Does not the very expression, " in the 
form of," convey the idea of something less than 
God ? On the other hand, if we assume that the 
apostle was speaking, as doubtless he was, of the 
Son, and that the Son was the man Jesus, possess- 
ing soul and body, then, as the Soul is spirit, and 
God is a spirit, we have in this soul the nearest 
approach to the form or image of God of anything 
of which we have knowledge. Again : " thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God." If the apos- 
tle had in mind a divine Son, it would hardly be 
proper to speak of him as " equal with God ; " for 
he would, even if united with the man Jesus, be 
verily God. There would be no equality in the 
case. 



144 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

But, from the point of view we have taken, how 
naturally the whole passage reads. We behold a 
human Son in himself infinitely inferior to the Fa- 
ther ; but, by virtue of his union with the Father, 
"all things are given into his hands." He has 
them rightfully, and not by " robbery ; " and his 
Father, the giver, loses nothing by the bestowal. 
God makes the Son his equal by this blessed union. 
Who can contemplate this without being drawn in 
adoration and gratitude towards his heavenly Fa- 
ther, and without a new emotion of love to the 
beloved Son ? What sublimity in this idea : the 
man Jesus, our Brother, was made equal with the 
eternal God ! Not only equal : he was made ONE 
with the incomprehensible Jehovah, — one with 
him in creation, one in the care and government 
of his people, one in the sojourn on earth, one in 
the rending of the tomb and the ascension, and 
he is one with him still in carrying on the work of 
redemption. 

How perfectly this idea of Christ agrees with his 
description of the Comforter ! — God the Father, 
himself the Son, and their joint acting, personified 
the Comforter, — three in ONE. 

Sec X. — Christ subject to the Father. 

I Cor. xv. 27, 28 : " For he hath put all things 
under his feet. But when he saith, all things are 
put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, 
which did put all things under him. And when all 
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I45 

Son also himself be subject unto him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all in all." 

Much ingenuity has been expended in the effort 
to harmonize this passage with the common theory 
of a divine Son ; and quite to the satisfaction, no 
doubt, of the writers and many others. Whitby, 
as quoted by Scott, evinces here great ability, and 
to us seems more plausible than any other com- 
mentator we have seen. Thousands, doubtless, and 
among them Dr. Adam Clarke, have accepted his 
views. We have not space to give Whitby's argu- 
ments, and hence shall not attempt to meet them. 
In any discussion, it is important, first of all, that 
the premises be correct, otherwise no dependence 
can be put on the conclusions. Whitby at that 
time believed in the doctrine of an eternal Son. 
His efforts, therefore, were naturally directed to 
bring this passage into agreement with that theory. 
The reply is, We have no knowledge of such a Son. 
We have never heard of him except from sources 
not authoritative. The Son revealed to men is the 
first-born humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let 
this be borne in mind, and the passage needs no 
labored explanation. It explains itself, and means 
just what it obviously says. 

The following seems to be the course of thought. 
When the wicked shall have been consigned to 
their place, and the righteous received into their 
everlasting habitations, and death swallowed up in 
victory, then Christ's mediatorial work in redemp- 
tion, and in a governmental capacity, will of course 
10 



I46 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

be completed ; but not, as is generally held, his 
entire mediatorial state. His mediatorial position 
will thenceforward be continued only in respect to 
worship. He will be the object through whom the 
Church triumphant will pay their adoration to the 
living God. There will be no separation of God 
the Father from his only-begotten Son : the re- 
deemed will see and know God only in and through 
the Son. With the Father he will still receive the 
honors of the saints. This doubtless was expressed 
in one of those songs to which the exile in Patmos 
was allowed to listen : " Blessing, and honor, and 
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever" (Rev. 
v. 13). The Lamb, we see, continues to have equal 
honors with him who sitteth upon the throne ; 
which confirms Christ's words : in heaven they do 
"honor the Son even as they honor the Father." 

These meditations are offered as possibly a con- 
tribution to the understanding of this passage. 

Matt. xxvi. 53: "Thinkest thou that I cannot 
now pray to my Father, and he shall presently 
give me more than twelve legions of angels?" 

The pronouns " I," &c, which Jesus thus applies 
to himself, can relate to him only as a man ; and 
they are generally so understood : and, as he uses 
them here in the same sense as elsewhere, it is a 
fair inference that they refer to his humanity, to 
the exclusion of any idea of divine sonship. He 
could not of himself command the army of angels, 
but must ask it of the Father. 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I47 

Thus might we go on citing Scripture, and filling 
page after page, enlarging our little book, however, 
beyond its intended limit. We must stop some- 
where ; and it is believed sufficient evidence has 
been presented to satisfy a candid mind that the 
doctrine of an eternal divine Son is not taught in 
the Bible : and, if not, it is a doctrine which exists 
only in the human imagination. 

Sec. XI. — Practical View of the Divine and 
Human in Christ. 

Nor are we able to see any benefit to be derived 
from such a Son. The Bible, and, so far as we 
know, all God's dealings, are for the good of man- 
kind. But of what advantage to the race is this 
alleged divine Son ? We have, in Christ, literally 
a Son of God and Son of man, concerning whose 
origin we are instructed, of whom we can conceive, 
who is truly divine and truly human. We are 
taught also how he is divine and how he is human ; 
and all, practically and so far as needful, is within 
the range of our faculties. We have this Son of 
man, divine on the very principle on which he has 
been held to be divine for the last fifteen hundred 
years ; that is, by union with God. The councils 
and the Church say, "By union with an eternal 
Son of God : " Christ says, " By union with God 
the Father :" and we prefer to follow Christ, rather 
than the fathers or councils. 

On this point only arises our dissent respecting 
the divinity of the Son of man. But the difference 



I48 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

is quite essential : on it hinges the reality or non- 
reality of an eternal Trinity in the Godhead. But 
here, with many, lies an insurmountable barrier. 
" What ! " say they : " have the fathers, the great 
scholars, the profound and far-seeing theologians of 
the past and the present, been laboring under error 
on this subject ? This cannot be." So, too, former 
advocates of the pre-existence of Christ's human 
soul hesitated, not being prepared, on the one hand, 
to say that the doctrine of an eternal Trinity was 
erroneous, or on the other, that their views of 
Christ were not sufficiently supported. They found 
the Saviour's pre-existent humanity too plainly and 
repeatedly declared by himself to allow that to be 
seriously doubted. But they were not prepared to 
retract what they had said and written in favor of 
an eternal Trinity. Thus they were in a dilemma. 

Occasion has been taken to refer to some of the 
alleged proofs of the eternal divinity of the Son, 
the insufficiency of which has been seen. It is 
evident that the doctrine of an eternal Trinity is 
inseparably connected with the alleged eternity of 
the Son. There is not the same direct evidence 
against an eternal Trinity as against an eternal 
Son ; nor need there be ; for, if there is no eternal 
Son, there can be no eternal Trinity. 

Here let us pause, and glance again at some of 
the manifestations and doings of this complex 
being, — the Son in his union with the Father, 
previous to his advent. We find different names 
applied to him, such as " God," in the expressions, 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I49 

" God created," " God said, Let us make man ; " 
then as " Lord God," in speaking to Adam ; then 
as " Lord," in addressing Cain. He is called " the 
God of Israel," "the Lord God of Israel," "the 
God of Abraham," " the angel of the covenant," 
" the messenger of God," " God of the prophets," 

He manifested himself now alone, as to Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others ; and now at- 
tended with angels, as to Abraham in the plains of 
Mamre, and to Jacob at Mahanaim. He assumed 
different appearances as occasion required. To 
Adam (probably), to Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, and 
others, he appeared as a man ; to Moses as a burn- 
ing bush ; to Israel as a cloud by day, and as a 
pillar of fire by night ; on Sinai as a dreadful fire, 
smoke, and sound of trumpet ; then as a cloud 
resting on the tabernacle ; and so oru He was not 
confined to any one name or appearance, or mode 
of communicating his will. 

Now we behold this same complex being, divine 
and human, who created all things, who manifested 
himself under these various names and characters, 
and has interested himself in all the affairs of men, 
who has been worshipped and adored by every de- 
vout person from Adam to Mary " the mother of 
our Lord," — we see him at length clothed in flesh 
and dwelling on earth as one of the human family. 
But how few recognized in that helpless babe, in 
that carpenter s son, the Creator of the universe, 
the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, 



I50 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

and of all his people ! Verily, he humbled himself 
and became obedient, eventually, unto death. But 
he was not without witnesses. Angels knew him, 
and were sent down to herald his coming. 

Simeon, taught from above, hailed in him God's 
salvation. The wise men of the East, under the 
same guidance, came hundreds of miles to offer him 
their treasures. Led by " the star," they no sooner 
saw him than " they fell down and worshipped 
him." Why worship that infant child rather than 
any other ? We have no reason to think he dif- 
fered in appearance from other children, or that 
he excited unusual attention except in those who 
were taught from above. They could see a reason 
for their homage ; for in him, the first-begotten 
Son, was the eternal Jehovah, whose companion the 
Son had been in his actions and intercourse to- 
wards man through all the ages. We would say, 
Let not only " all the angels of God," but all the 
inhabitants of earth, " worship him ! " 

It is not needful again to trace the Son in his 
early life. We find no manifestations of the divin- 
ity that was in him till his earthly powers were 
fully developed. His divinity being perfect, if it 
was to be manifested through humanity, the hu- 
manity should be perfectly developed. Hence he 
was in obscurity as to his divine character, till he 
had reached mature age. Then, after sanctioning 
by his example the rite of initiation into the Chris- 
tian Church militant which he was about to estab- 
lish, we see him " manifesting forth his glory/' as 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 151 

that same being, God and man, which he had been 
in the ages past ; the man, however, is now more 
prominently brought to view, having taken on the 
earthly body. 

See him at Simon's table, dining with other men 
as one of them, and like them in outward appear- 
ance : hear him at the same table, as a God, saying 
to the weeping sinner, " Thy sins are forgiven." 
The Jews murmur, and exclaim, " Who can forgive 
sins but God only ? " True, indeed ; and there, 
among them, was the eternal God the Father, 
united with his Son in the body. They, untaught 
by the Spirit, saw only the human person : he was 
to them but one like themselves. No wonder when, 
all at once, he assumed the divine prerogative, and 
pronounced forgiveness on one whom they knew 
only as an outcast, they broke into murmurs. How 
little did Simon and his guests imagine with whom 
they were dining ! Yet the penitent sinner knew. 
At least she knew sufficiently to lead her to throw 
herself, a suppliant, at his feet ; and she received 
from him a benefaction as much greater than the 
highest potentate of earth could confer, as the 
heavens are higher than the earth. The murmur- 
ings at Simon's table were no more surprising, 
however, than what is heard in our own day, when 
it is confidently asserted from some of our pulpits 
that this spiritual Healer was only a man. 

But let us follow this man (for such he was) a 
little further. When crossing the lake, we find him 
in the stern of the boat, asleep, as any wearied man 



152 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

might be ; but as soon as the affrighted disciples 
awake him, as God he speaks to the winds and 
waves, " Peace, be still;" and immediately "there 
was a great calm." When he was with the sisters 
of Lazarus, and saw them and the Jews weeping, 
he also " wept " in sympathy ; but, at the grave, 
with the power of the Almighty, he said, " Laz- 
arus, come forth." " And he that was dead came 
forth " 

In these and most of his miracles, the God and 
the man are plainly distinguishable. His own ex- 
planation of all these mighty deeds we have so often 
given, that it seems superfluous to repeat that he 
refers all this power to his union with the Father, 
of whom he speaks as dwelling in him and doing 
the works. " I and my Father are one," — Father, 
let it be observed, not a divine Son. '• The Father 
that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." As if 
the Saviour said, "I as a man with you, and my 
Father the eternal God, are one ; and he through 
me doeth the works." "Therefore the Son of man 
hath power on earth to forgive sins." 

Now, why may we not conceive of God as dealing 
with men in this same way, through this same 
agency, his Son, in the ages before the incarnation, 
as well as afterwards ? 

Has the reader ever marked the beautiful coin- 
cidence between the narrative of the creation and 
the record of Christ's works ? " God said, Let 
there be light : and there was light." Christ said 
to the leper, " Be thou clean ; " and he was clean. 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 53 

The cleansing of the leper was as really God's act 
as the creation of light. " God said, Let the waters 
under the heaven be gathered together unto one 
place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so." 
Christ said to the waters and the winds, " Peace, 
be still : " and it was so. God said, " Let the earth 
bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the 
fruit tree yielding fruit : and it was so." Christ 
said to the palsied man, " Arise, take up thy bed, 
and walk : " and he did so. " God said, Let there 
be lights in the firmament of heaven : . . . and it 
was so." Christ said to the corpse of the young 
man of Nain, " I say unto thee, Arise : and he that 
was dead sat up, and began to speak." 

We might proceed thus with regard to most of 
Christ's divine works in the flesh ; for " he spake, 
and it was done : he commanded, and it stood 
fast." No one will deny that it as truly required 
divine power to perform these works, as to per- 
form the acts of creation. 

If, now, we admit the force of Christ's own 
words, just as he spoke them and evidently in- 
tended they should be understood, and as they 
evidently were understood, at least by the apostles, 
— that he, the man Jesus, as to his soul, was " the 
beginning of the creation of God " (not " began 
the creation of God," as some would say), and that 
God the Father was "in him and he in God" 
"before the foundation of the world" (for if he 
was the beginning of God's creation, he must 
have existed before the world), — then all the rep- 



154 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

reservations in the Bible, from the first verse of 
Genesis to the last of Revelation, so far as they 
apply to God and Christ, their relations and works, 
are simplified, and made clear and comprehen- 
sible. 

On the other hand, to maintain the doctrine of 
an eternally begotten Son, and an eternally per- 
sonified Spirit, veils the whole in impenetrable 
mystery ; and so far as concerns the Son, involves 
the subject (we say it with all due deference) in 
palpable inconsistency and self-contradiction. 

A few words may be added on the doctrine of 
an eternal Trinity in the Godhead. Mark, it is an 
eternal Trinity to which we object : for, as already 
said, we believe and rejoice in the Christian Trin- 
ity, as instituted by Christ, and consummated in 
the blessed Comforter. But whence and through 
whom came the idea of an eternal Trinity ? When 
did the Church accept this as one of her essential 
doctrines ? So far as we can ascertain, it was not 
heard of in the first or second century. Admit 
that it has been firmly held for the last fifteen or 
sixteen hundred years. But does this establish 
its claim to be accepted as a doctrine in Christ's 
Church ? It matters not that the Ecumenical 
Council of Nice, and the creed of the pious and 
world-famed Athanasius, assert it as a fundamental 
doctrine of the Christian faith : we cannot accept 
it at their hands. With one bound we turn from 
them all, and would come directly to Him who 
spake as never man spake. We would sit down at 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 55 

his feet, and, Mary-like, learn our religious creed 
from his lips, and from the men whom he per- 
sonally instructed and inspired. 

Allow us to quote a sentence or two from the 
Athanasian Creed, the main doctrines of which 
are commonly incorporated into Church Articles. 
" The Father is made of none, neither created nor 
begotten : the Son is of the Father, alone, neither 
made nor created, but begotten." Does not this 
very language show that the Son was derived from 
the Father ? If we understand words, a begotten 
being is necessarily a derived being. Yet it is said 
that both are alike eternal. Such logic we cannot 
comprehend. 

Look at this " mystical Trinity," as generally 
received, — three persons, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, one in the Godhead from all eternity ; and 
this, as supposed by some, is what John meant in 
his first Epistle, when he says that they "bear 
record in heaven." Record of what ? The reply 
is, " Of the doctrine that these three are one in 
the Godhead." We do not so understand it. But 
suppose it true : in what way does it practically 
affect us ? Suppose Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
to have been one in the Godhead millions of years 
ago, having so remained to our day : what applica- 
tion can be made of this to our spiritual benefit ? 
Could it appear to us anything other than mys- 
tery ? We might, indeed, try to contemplate it ; 
but can we make it practical ? No : we need a 
Trinity of which we can form a rational idea, and 



I56 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

which we can apply to ourselves in the great 
matter of our salvation. Such a one we have 
from our blessed Redeemer ; and we rejoice in it, 
and praise him for it. 

Sec. XII. — Christ's Union with the Father unlike 
the Believers Union. 

It is maintained by some that the union of 
Christ with the Father is simply that union for 
which he prays in the words, " Neither pray I for 
these alone," — his immediate disciples, — " but for 
them also which shall believe on me through their 
word," — all later disciples, — " that they all may 
be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us " (John xvii. 20, 
21). The next verse seems to refer to the future 
state : " And the glory which thou gavest me I 
have given them ; that they may be one, even as 
we are one." 

No doubt Jesus here prays for the oneness of his 
disciples ; i. e., that they might be like him and 
his Father in being united in a spirit of love and 
purity. And it was just what might have been 
expected from Jesus, when praying for his brother- 
man. How could he have prayed for less, since he 
had enjoined on his disciples to be "perfect" as 
their " Father in heaven is perfect ? " 

But this is by no means that union of which we 
have been treating, — that union of which Christ 
speaks when he says, " I and my Father are one." 
For, were it so, why do not all Christians have the 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 57 

power to work miracles, as he had, and those also 
whom he specially empowered ? 

There is a oneness of the believer with Christ, 
which is secured by the faith of the believer in 
him. This faith unites him to Christ, so that by 
the economy of grace he inherits the promises in 
him, and becomes, according to Paul (Rom. viii. 
17), an "heir of God, and joint heir with Christ." 
But the ground of this union being faith, the be- 
liever must have an act in it. If he does not 
exercise faith, there is no union. Not so in the 
union of Christ with the Father. The act of unit- 
ing was purely the act of the Father. The Son, 
a derived being, could have no more power to 
unite himself with the Father, or aid in thus 
uniting himself, than had his brother-man whom 
they had placed on earth. This uniting was as 
exclusively the act of the Father as the begetting. 
In the nature of things it could not be otherwise. 

This union, also, of the Father and Son was 
such, that neither, within his sphere, would act 
without the concurrence of the other. Their w T ills 
were in perfect harmony. How often was it other- 
wise with the disciples in their relation to Christ ! 
He had occasionally to reprove them. " Ye know 
not what ye ask," " Ye know not what spirit ye 
are of," were his mild rebukes. 

Again : as has been often remarked, whenever 
the apostles had occasion to refer to the power by 
which they wrought miracles, they always referred 
to Jesus Christ as that power. Now, if their union 



I58 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

with God was the same as Christ's, why did they 
not refer to God instead of Christ ? Why did not 
Peter say to the crippled man, " In the name of 
God, rise up and walk" ? We do not recollect a 
single instance in which they claimed divine power 
except through Christ. Nor do we find them 
claiming any union with Christ, or any power or 
authority from him, except through their faith in 
him. How very different the case with Christ ! 
Though disclaiming any power independently of 
the Father, yet, in his union with him, he claims 
all the power his Father possesses. " All power 
is given unto me in heaven and in earth " (Matt, 
xxviii. 18). "All things that the Father hath are 
mine'' (John xvi. 15). "All mine are thine, and 
thine are mine" (John xvii. 10). 

In all this, faith in God, or any other condition 
of this union, is not once mentioned. Could the 
apostles in any such manner claim their union 
with Christ ? 

In John xiii. 13, he says, "Ye call me Master 
and Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am." Does 
he pray for such a union of the disciples with 
himself and the Father as would justify them in 
claiming these titles ? 

How would this agree with his instructions 
(Matt, xxiii. 8-10), where he warns them not to be 
called " rabbi," " master," or " father " ? 

In Luke vi. 46, he asks, " Why call ye me Lord, 
Lord, and do not the things which I say ? " He 
does not disapprove of their calling him Lord, but 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 59 

of their not obeying him as such. Did he pray 
that the disciples might have authority to be called 
Lord ? 

When Paul affirms (i Cor. xii. 3), " No man can 
say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," 
he implies that it is a divine influence which in- 
duces the soul to apply to him this title, — a pretty 
sure proof, we think, that he is Lord in a divine 
sense. Was it his prayer that his disciples should 
hold a similar position ? 

Further : to worship any other being than God, 
we know, is idolatrous and impious. Now it cannot 
be denied that Jesus, on several occasions while on 
earth, received worship, and that he administered 
no reproof to those who offered it. 

How different the conduct of the apostles ! 
When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter, and 
worshipped him, Peter said to him, " Stand up : I 
myself also am a man." When the people at Lystra 
were about to offer sacrifice to Paul and Earnabas, 
they rent their clothes, and ran in amongst the 
people, crying out and saying, " Sirs, why do ye 
these things ? " Thus, while Christ accepted wor- 
ship as his right, the apostles rejected it as an 
impious service. Can any one imagine that Christ 
prayed that the disciples, like himself, might have 
such a union with the Father as should constitute 
a claim to receive worship ? 

Besides, Christ does not say that his disciples 
already are, he prays that they may be, one at a 
future time, just as he prays that they may be with 



l6o BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

him and behold his glory, — referring clearly to 
future time : whereas the union of Christ with the 
Father was before the foundation of the world, and 
was such as to enable him, as has been seen, to 
take part in the creation. Paul writes to the 
Colossians that " he created all things that were 
created," and again to the Hebrews, that " by him 
God made the worlds." Did Christ pray that the 
disciples' union with him should be such as to give 
them power to ereate worlds ? 

We presume that all the apostles, after Pentecost, 
recognized God in Christ. If they applied to 
Christ, they applied to God. If they called on 
Christ, they called on God. But we do not suppose 
they generally understood in what way the man 
Jesus stood connected with God. It is doubtful 
whether Paul even, who was more thoroughly in- 
structed in the principles of Christ's kingdom than 
most of his brethren, had a full understanding of 
the manner of this connection, though clear as to 
the fact " that God was in Christ, reconciling the 
world unto himself." And they all undoubtedly 
had a full conception of the reality of the union ; 
for the Comforter was to guide them into all truth ; 
and the reality, rather than the manner, of this 
union was the truth. God united a soul with the 
body of Adam : but he did not explain the manner 
of the union ; and it has not yet been discovered. 
John, however, evidently had clear views, both of 
the fact and the manner of the union of which we 
are speaking. He refers to it as a personal union, 



CLOSING REMARKS. l6l 

by which the two became one ; hence the fullness 
and clearness of his writings on the subject. No 
other sacred writer begins to exhibit so clear an 
understanding of it as does " the beloved disci- 
ple." 

To conclude this topic : The apostles claim their 
divine power, and Christians their eternal life, from 
Christ, and through faith in him. Jesus claims 
his power and authority directly from his Father ; 
not through faith in him, but through his perfect 
union with the Father. This is the distinct and 
essential difference between the union of Christ 
with his Father, and the union between the apostles 
and Christ and believers with each other. 



CHAPTER X. 

CLOSING REMARKS. 

Sec. I. — ; Comprehensiveness and Simplicity of 
the Divine Economy. 

It will not be disputed that the all-wise Deity 
had all the objects of his creation, all acts with 
their results, distinctly before him, prior to any 
movement towards that creation. That is, He had 
a perfect plan, relating to all creatures, things, and 
actions, from the creation to the close of time. In 
this plan were comprehended the creation, fall, and 
ii 



l62 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

recovery of man, who was to be the principal actor 
in the terrestrial drama. 

And now, to commence with the movements of 
the Deity in carrying out this plan, it should be 
remembered that each movement is only a part in 
the great plan : and such acts only as are revealed 
in Scripture are to be considered. 

The Almighty, then, foreseeing that man would 
use his volition to his own ruin, in wisdom pro- 
vided a scheme for his restoration which should 
be an honor to Himself and his contemplated Son 
forever. This scheme was inaugurated by his 
begetting a being of the same nature and faculties 
of soul with the man he designed should be created 
and placed on the earth. 

As the being first produced or begotten was 
called his Son, the Begetter would be Father. 

But the Father saw that in order to meet all the 
objects for which this Son was brought into exist- 
ence, he must possess perfect divinity. He saw 
He could unite him into such a oneness with Him- 
self that it would invest him with all the attributes, 
powers, life, and indeed every nature and possession 
■ belonging to Deity, innate eternal existence only 
excepted. And were it possible to have imparted 
this also, it would add nothing to his faculties or 
character ; for the oneness with his Father con- 
stituted him equal with his Father. If his Father 
be God, so must he also and equally be God. As 
the second movement in the great plan, the Father 
effected this Oneness j and when the Son came in 



CLOSING REMARKS. 1 63 

the flesh on earth he proclaimed, " I and my 
Father are One. Now this complex Being, two 
in one, is called in Scripture, God, Lord God, 
&c, &c. 

This Being, in now further carrying out his plan, 
" moved upon the face of the waters," created light, 
made the firmament, created man, warned him 
against disobedience, and, after the fall, revealed 
to him the system of recovery in a promised 
Redeemer. This complex Being continued to per- 
form all the divine operations recorded in the 
inspired word down to the Pentecostal day. From 
that time till the close of revelation we find ,in 
" The Comforter " the same complex Being, Father 
and Son. And in this interim between Pentecost 
and the close of revelation we find the same Being 
recognized in the divine movements, as in the Old 
Testament. A light shone around Saul " above the 
brightness of the sun," and a power accompanying 
it brought him and his companions to the ground. 
When Saul inquired who it was that had spoken to 
him, the answer was, " I am Jesus," &c. Here was 
the Son ; but Jesus had declared that he could do 
nothing of himself, that is, nothing superhuman ; 
" but the Father," said he, " doeth the works." 
Hence the divine work, in this transaction, was 
that of the Father and the Son acting together as 
One, precisely as had been the case from the com- 
mencement of the creation. Paul recognized the 
same connection in almost all his letters. And in 
this manner the Comforter, who is the movement 



164 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

or action of this complex Being, is still carrying 
forward and fulfilling the plan of the Almighty 
until the whole world shall be subdued to the Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

Were this divine scheme once fairly compre- 
hended, it would seem to be the most simple, rea- 
sonable, and merciful system that could be devised, 
perfect and God-like in all its parts. Frail, short- 
sighted man may indeed raise objections, but God's 
great and wise plan stands, in its every, even 
smallest point, just as it existed in the Omniscient 
mind before He said, " Let there be light." And 
although all actions, good and evil, were as clearly 
before Him then as when committed, it must be 
remembered that when all created objects, man 
included, came from the Creator's hand, they were 
pronounced " very good." 

And, as the man was delegated to have dominion 
over all the earthly creation, all thus under his 
government would naturally be affected by his acts, 
whether good or evil. When, then, this ruler had 
done evil, and become himself evil, the effect was 
felt in his posterity ; evil cannot produce good. 
And not only does his posterity feel the sad effect, 
but " Cursed be the ground for thy sake," said God 
to Adam, " thorns and thistles shall it bring forth." 
That which before brought forth the fruitful tree, 
now yields the thorn and thistle. Thus the gov- 
erned, we see, suffer with him who governs, the 
effect of his evil doing. It was so with David, 
who in the pride of his heart ordered the number- 






CLOSING REMARKS. l6$ 

ing of the people. In consequence of his sin, 
seventy thousand of the men of Israel must die. If 
it be hard to see the justice of this and other similar 
dealings of God, it is because we cannot see as He 
sees. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. 
So with respect to the system of salvation through 
an atonement. Some call it unjust that an inno- 
cent being should suffer because of another's trans- 
gression. To the superficial view there may be 
the appearance of injustice. Let it be considered, 
however, that the great work of the atonement is 
one of the parts of this comprehensive, perfect 
plan of which we are speaking. 

The bringing into existence of the " begotten 
Son," was the preliminary act of God in the crea- 
tion of all things made known to us. This Son is 
then taken into perfect union with his Father, and 
in that union is made, with his Father, Creator 
and Governor of the universe. Let the reader 
turn to the sixth, seventh, and eighth verses of the 
second Psalm, and see what the Father says to 
the Son on his being brought into existence. 

Now in this united capacity they bring into 
existence another being of the same nature and 
faculties with the Son before his union with the 
Father, and life is breathed into this new created 
being, inhabiting a body of clay previously fash- 
ioned for him. The position of the Son when all 
the works of creation were finished, was this: — 
He was in a glorified state (John xvii. 5). He was 
one with his Father, as in all creative, so in all 



1 66 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

governmental acts. He had a brother, man, placed 
on earth, and made ruler of all the earthly creation, 
having been created in the image of the dual Cre- 
ator. This brother, man, had a volition as a con- 
stituent part of his nature, which he could use for 
good or for evil, a volition with which God himself 
could not interfere without a violence both opposed 
to the very idea of moral government, and casting 
an imputation on His wisdom in creating a free 
moral agent, in fact, contradicting and revoking his 
own work. After due instruction and warning 
from his Creator, he was enticed, and using his will 
for evil, found himself, with his sinning companion, 
in a state of wretched and hopeless spiritual bond- 
age. All this had been taken into account in the 
plan of Omniscience. Nevertheless this fact in 
no wise influenced the volition of the brother man. 
His acts were as free as if no such plan or fore- 
sight had ever existed. His conduct being wholly 
of his own choice, the responsibility rested wholly 
on himself. 

Now comes into view another step in the divine 
plan : the redemption of man, the Son's brother on 
earth. And the question suggests itself, May 
not this have been one, yea even the grand reason 
why the Son was brought into existence ? The 
Son voluntarily and cheerfully undertakes this 
great work of man's redemption according to the 
Father's foreknowledge and will. The fitness of 
the Son's character for the ordeal through which 
he was to pass, and the circumstances of the great 



CLOSING REMARKS. l6j 

transaction, are particularly discussed in the Appen- 
dix, to which the reader is referred. 

Who can doubt that, were we able to fully appre- 
hend the nature and effect of this redemption, we 
should see an expression of wisdom, justice, and 
mercy, such as could come only from Deity. Besides 
the salvation and happiness of millions of the human 
family, look at the signal honor, the gratitude and 
praise which, both in the present life and during the 
eternal ages, will be given to the Son by reason of 
his undertaking and accomplishing the redemptive 
work. "A great multitude whom no man can 
number, who washed their robes and made them 
white in the blood of the Lamb," are represented as 
singing the song whose strains will be prolonged 
through eternity. Listen : this whole multitude 
with one loud voice proclaim, " Worthy is the 
Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and wisdom, 
and honor, and glory, and blessing." From that 
time till now this company of redeemed ones has 
been increasing ; and how great will be their num- 
ber when the happy company shall at last have 
been completed ! And this all, from the redemp- 
tion wrought by the Son, in accordance with the 
Father's wondrous plan. Will not this bring to 
the Son a full reward for all the ignominy and 
suffering he endured while in the flesh — yea, even 
in bearing the penalty of the Law that man had 
disobeyed ? Fitting was the apostle's testimony ; 
"Who, for the joy that was set before him, endured 



l68 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at 
the right hand of God." 

And now, why should this simple and compre- 
hensible economy of our Heavenly Father be 
shrouded in such mystical theories as that God 
performed a part of his works by an eternal Son, 
and a part by a third person in the Godhead, "per- 
sons " that we cannot contemplate without involv- 
ing a plurality of Gods ? 

It is easy for one to " look the book through," 
and then denounce it as " disproving the Deity of 
our blessed Lord," or " a mild system of Arianism," 
or " Orthodox Unitarianism," or " Sabellianism/' or 
" Indwelling Scheme," &c. Now, with these, or 
any other tenets, as such, we have nothing to do. 
Nor are we careful about " resemblances," outside 
of the New Testament. 

We make no claim to the doctrines herein ad- 
vanced as our own. Our only claim is, that they 
are truly the teachings which God has revealed to 
us by his Son in the Scriptures. Our only aim has 
been to ascertain what Christ and his inspired 
apostles intended to teach, and to record that, and 
that only. Nor do we write simply because we 
believe in them, but because Christ taught them. 

Our belief is of no moment to others, but 
Christ's words are of vital importance to all. 

When he calls himself " the Beginning of the 
creation of God," and his apostles call him " the 
first-begotten of every creature," the " first-begot- 
ten," " God's first-begotten," &c, we believe them ; 



CLOSING REMARKS. 1 69 

and when we find the same sentiment so often and 
so pointedly expressed in the New Testament, we 
dare not set our ingenuity at work to compel them 
to express something different from their intention. 
Nor can we accept what appear like such attempts 
from others. 

This whole economy is so signally brought out 
and verified by Jesus and his apostles, that it would 
seem as if he was aware that doubts, schemes, and 
erroneous systems would find their way into the 
Church ; hence he took special pains to guard his 
people against such devices, by presenting the 
truth so often, and under so many different as- 
pects, in as simple and plain language as words 
would admit. 

We have no fears in allowing the Scriptures 
herein quoted, and the doctrines drawn therefrom, 
to be compared with any writings, ancient or mod- 
ern, on the same passages, provided it be an unbi- 
assed judgment which is brought to bear in the 
examination. 

Sec. II. — Certain Views noticed. 

It has long been a question with us, How is it that 
the doctrines of an eternal Son and of an eternal 
Trinity have been able to retain their hold in the 
Church through so many centuries ? The argu- 
ments and so-called philosophy used by devout and 
able men to prove them from the Bible, are matters 
for painful reflection. We have searched diligently, 
and, we think, thoroughly, but have found no such 



I70 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

proof in the sacred volume. There are many pas- 
sages from which a reader may possibly infer them ; 
and, with these ideas already fixed in his mind, as 
is the case with too many inquirers after truth, he 
might regard such passages as proofs, even though 
conscious of not understanding the doctrines. The 
first verse of John's gospel, on which we have 
commented, may be taken as an example. The 
common deductions from it, as we have seen, 
amount to just this : that because the Son was with 
God at the beginning of the creation, he must 
have been with him in all past eternity. All other 
arguments for the eternity of the Son, so far as we 
are acquainted with them, when examined, leave 
nothing beyond the same inference. Is it singular 
that we cannot accept such reasoning ? The trou- 
ble is, men are too prone to rely on their fellow- 
men in forming conclusions respecting Christian 
doctrine. If a subject is a little obscure, the 
learned betake themselves to the fathers or sim- 
ilar sources, and others to the family commentary, 
instead of taking the inspired word as the grand 
source of instruction, and carefully comparing its 
statements. Is not more time spent in searching 
for what human teachers in the Church have said 
on difficult subjects than in pondering the words of 
Christ and of his apostles with a child-like depend- 
ence on Christ's promise of the Comforter, as The 
Leader " into all truth " ? 

Men too often adopt a generally accepted doc- 
trine as an undoubted truth ; and, if they appeal 



CLOSING REMARKS. 171 

to the Bible on the subject, it is rather in order to 
find the proof of the same, than to see whether it 
is true. How many persons are there who, with- 
out prepossessions, go directly to the Word of God 
to see whether the doctrine of an eternal Son is 
there taught ? Is it not generally assumed that 
this doctrine is true, and is taught in the Scrip- 
tures ? We believe that, if one tithe of the time 
and labor spent to make the Bible prove the doc- 
trine of an eternal Son and an eternal Trinity had 
been earnestly given to come at the real teachings 
of Scripture on these points, the Church, centuries 
ago, would have been freed from the burden of 
these mysteries. 

We are not unaware that we may be charged 
with setting ourselves up as umpire concerning 
the teachings of the New Testament on these sub- 
jects. Nothing is farther from our design. Simply 
claiming to search the Scriptures for ourselves, we 
only ask others to do the same, and to follow what 
there they find. 

The question is agitated, whether there must not 
have been a capacity of suffering in the divine na- 
ture of the Son ; as otherwise the penalty of the 
divine law, it is asserted, could not be fully executed, 
and several passages of Scripture would not find 
an adequate meaning, and so a complete and accept- 
able atonement would fail to be made. 

We recoil at once from any such idea. What ! 
God suffer the penalty of his own law, which he 
gave to a being of his own creating, and wholly for 



172 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the benefit of that being ? Why give a law at all, if, 
when broken, he would bear the penalty ? Would 
he not thus encourage further transgression ? 

Suppose there were in the divine nature such a 
capacity for suffering, — an idea wholly inadmissi- 
ble, and at war with all we know of God, — sup- 
pose, however, that it could be and were so, would 
his suffering fulfil the divine law given to man, 
" In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die " ? Could that edict be changed to say, " In 
the day thou eatest thereof I will die for you " ? 
No : God must change before one jot or tittle of 
his law can fail. It was given to man for mait to 
keep : if he broke it, man must fulfil it ; and to 
fulfil it is either to obey it wholly and perfectly, or 
to bear its penalty. 

It will be seen how exactly our view of the na- 
ture and character of the Son meets the aforesaid 
inquiry. We see a Son, taken into union with the 
Father, before the man who received and broke 
the law was created ; and this Son, of the same 
nature as the disobedient man, is the one only 
being who could put himself in a situation to bear 
the penalty of the law, and redeem his brother. 
There is no need of assuming in the divine nature 
a latent capacity of suffering, or of discussing the 
question as to the reality of such a capacity. In 
the Son of God, who came down from heaven for 
this very purpose, we have one exactly fitted to 
meet the emergency ; and he did meet it. 



CLOSING REMARKS. 173 

Sec. III. — Application. 

We close with a few words to our fellow Chris- 
tians. 

Dear Brethren in Christ, — In this form of ad- 
dress we include all, without reference to any dis- 
tinctions of name or sect, " who, by the effectual 
grace of the triune Comforter, have been born into 
the kingdom of God, and thus made joint heirs 
with the Lord Jesus Christ," — in the name of our 
common Redeemer we entreat you, in judging of 
what has now been written, to lay aside all creeds 
and dogmas which find no support in the teachings 
of the adored Saviour, or of his inspired apostles. 
Take the simple Book, as it is given us, with the 
explanations which are found in itself, and seek 
the enlightening aid of that Comforter who is the 
promised Leader into all truth. 

Lean not on the authority or ability of man ; as 
far as possible, let scripture explain scripture. We 
think we have learned that the sacred writings are 
their own best commentators. 

If, on faithful search and comparison, the reader 
finds the views herein set forth do not accord with 
his convictions as to the teachings of our common 
Lord and Master, of course he will not adopt them. 
To follow Christ is the only path of safety. But 
if he finds them to agree with the Inspired Oracles, 
with himself rests the responsibility as to their 
acceptance. 



APPENDIX. 



In the foregoing treatise there are allusions to 
the doctrine of the Atonement. The writer has 
nowhere seen explanations of this doctrine which 
fully meet his views. In the usual treatment of 
the subject, certain requirements of the divine 
moral law seem not to have occurred to the 
writers. 

Suppose that Christ, in his true character as 
human and divine, had been waylaid by an assassin 
and murdered ; would his death in that case have 
made an atonement for sin ? 

Or, had he been taken with a fever, such as was 
common at certain seasons in that country, and 
died under it, would then his death have made an 
atonement ? 

Again : if by an accident, as by drowning or 
otherwise, he had lost his life, would this have 
made an atonement ? The answer, we presume, 
in all these cases, would be, No. 

Or, once more, had he lived to an extreme old 

175 



176 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

age, and then died as subject to the law of mor- 
tality, would such a death have had an atoning 
efficacy ? 

Now, we well understand that in the economy 
of grace, under the divine government, these sup- 
posed cases could not happen. But they may, 
perhaps, serve the purpose of illustration. 

Suppose, still further, that, through envy, Christ 
had been seized by a lawless mob, and carried 
before the authorities of the land. Bribed wit- 
nesses testify that he committed some capital 
offence, and thus conviction is obtained against 
him : he is sentenced and executed. Would his 
death in that case avail as an atonement for the 
sins of mankind ? Should the answer be, " Yes," 
the inquiry arises, What is the difference, in the 
nature or bearing of the loss of his life in this 
case, and in that of its being taken by an assas- 
sin ? In both instances his life is taken by malice. 
But should the answer be " No," then it may be 
asked, What difference is there, as to the nature 
and bearing of the case, between the supposed 
transaction and that which actually took place in 
the apprehension, conviction, and crucifixion of 
Jesus ? In both, the acts would be legal accord- 
ing to the laws of the land, but unjust because 
the conviction was on false evidence. Instances 
often occur now in our courts, where the evidence 
is such as to convict a party of guilt when per- 
fectly innocent. The particulars, as published in 
the papers of the day, are within the memory of 






APPENDIX. 177 

many among us, concerning a person in a neigh- 
boring State, who was tried for murder, convicted, 
and sentenced. While awaiting the day of his 
execution, to the surprise of all, the supposed 
murdered man appeared, alive and well. Having 
heard, in another State, of the facts in the case, 
he immediately hastened to the relief of his former 
neighbor. Now, this man had been legally con- 
victed, and would have been legally, yet most un- 
justly, executed, the evidence being false on which 
he was pronounced guilty. 

Now, in the nature, intent, and bearing of the 
trial of Christ, the evidence being perverted by 
the Jewish Council, and false at Pilate's judgment- 
seat, is not the case quite similar to that just men- 
tioned ? The evidence was false in both cases ; 
the convictions, if legal, were unjust, because 
founded on false evidence. Could the fact, simply, 
of Christ's submitting to such conviction and ex- 
ecution, be regarded as answering the demands of 
the divine moral law ? 

After the subjugation of the Jews by the Ro- 
mans, the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrim was 
recognized in all cases except capital offences, 
which must be carried to the Roman authorities. 
Blasphemy, according to the Mosaic moral law, 
was a capital offence, punishable by the criminal 
being stoned. (Lev. xxiv. 16.) Jesus, therefore, 
having been condemned for blasphemy, would have 
been stoned, had the Jews possessed the power. 
In that case, certain prophecies would not have 
12 



I78 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

been fulfilled ; as, "They shall look on him whom 
they pierced" and also, "They pierced my hands 
and my feet." 

The Council assumed that if a man claimed to 
be God, or made himself equal with God, it was 
blasphemy. When, therefore, Jesus, on oath, ad- 
mitted that he was " the Christ, the Son of God " 
(a truth which has been the joy and rejoicing of 
millions), they, taking him to be but man, pro- 
nounced it blasphemy, and consequently passed 
upon him the sentence of death. Having no 
power to execute the sentence, however, they take 
him to the Roman authorities, and charge him 
with a political crime, that of treasonable utter- 
ance against the government, and by mob accla- 
mation, and an indirect threat to accuse Pilate 
as disloyal to Caesar, they obtain the sentence for 
crucifixion. Although this sentence was osten- 
sibly legal, yet a more unjust and malicious act, 
especially on the part of the Jews, history does 
not record. 

Now, what bearing could such an unrighteous, 
earthly transaction have towards answering the 
demands of a divine moral law ? How could the 
effect be a fulfilling of the law of God, any more 
than if the life of Christ had been taken by acci- 
dent or assassination ? 

It is evident from the teachings of Christ and 
the apostles, that the original sentence, "Thou 
shalt surely die," applied to the whole man. It 
did not refer simply to the separation of soul and 



APPENDIX. 179 

body, and the extinction of animal life, but in- 
cluded the state or condition of soul and body 
both before and after their separation. 

The body was to return to the ground whence 
it was taken ; the soul, which can never decay, or, 
literally, die, was to pass into a state or condition 
which would be the natural result of a non-com- 
pliance with the directions given to our first par- 
ents. This condition, being a spiritual condition, 
cannot be presented to the senses as can that of the 
body. It is set before us, by Jesus and the apostles, 
by emblems and figures ; earthly things and states 
being employed to represent the spiritual state. 
Thus it is called a state of bondage. " He that 
committeth sin," said Jesus, "is the servant (or 
bondman) of sin." No one doubts that Eve and 
her companion committed sin in disregarding their 
Creator's directions. In so doing they came into 
bondage, as the consequence of sin. 

It is also called a state of condemnation. Paul 
says (Rom. v. 10), "As by one" (all agree he here 
refers to Adam), "judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation," &c. 

And also as a state of death, in contrast with 
another state called eternal life. Paul says (Rom. 
vi. 23), " The wages of sin is death ; " that is, the 
result of sin is death. 

Many other figures and emblems are used in 
Scripture to represent this state of the soul under 
the effect of disobedience, which need not be here 
mentioned. 



l80 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

The first parents, therefore, having sinned, found 
themselves in this state of spiritual bondage, in- 
cluding alienation from their Father ; and this at 
once manifested itself in their disinclination to 
hear or see him. On hearing his voice, they fled, 
and hid themselves, which plainly showed their 
estrangement from him. 

Now, it is an unquestionable fact that this state 
of the soul towards God is lineally and legitimately 
transmitted to the posterity of Adam down to the 
latest generation. This view is unacceptable, we 
are aware, to very many ; but we see not how, 
legally or logically, it can be otherwise. Nature 
and observation on every hand attest the fact of 
a universally inherited opposition to God. " Like- 
ness begets likeness the world over." 

But it is not now our intention to enter into 
argument on this point. We are to consider, 
rather, the provision which our heavenly Father, 
in connection with his Son, has made, that man 
may be redeemed from this bondage or condem- 
nation. It is the general understanding of those 
who call themselves orthodox, that redemption is 
in Christ. If the question be asked, How is re- 
demption in him ? the usual answer is, " He died 
to redeem us. His death offered an acceptable 
satisfaction to divine justice. We are redeemed 
through repentance and faith in him." These gen- 
eral affirmations unquestionably express Scripture 
doctrine. Paul is very clear and decisive in de- 
claring the same. Peter and John give similar 



APPENDIX. l8l 

testimony, the teaching of the Apocalypse being to 
the same effect. 

But as the divine edict is of a spiritual as well as 
physical character, it becomes needful that its ful- 
filment be likewise of a twofold character ; and as 
the moral character of the first pair had become 
dissimilar to that of their Creator, and was assimi- 
lated to an adverse being and government, they had 
neither the inclination nor power to comply with 
the divine directions, or to redeem themselves and 
return to their former allegiance. What their in- 
clination was has been already noticed : the power 
to reinstate themselves they had lost, like all crimi- 
nals, who, from the fact of their having broken the 
law, at once lose the power to repair the breach in 
any other way than to endure what the law re- 
quires. 

We will pass, then, to consider in what way Je- 
sus not only fulfilled the divine mandate externally, 
but also in all its spiritual demands. 

It will be remembered that Jesus, on a certain 
occasion, speaking of his life, said, " No man taketh 
it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have 
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it 
again" (John x. 18.) Here Jesus asserts that no 
man took his life ; and if we examine the circum- 
stances attending his death, we shall see that this 
declaration was literally true. 

On that memorable evening, the fifteenth of 
Nisan, after Jesus, with the eleven, had withdrawn, 
probably late, to the garden, all around was quiet 



1 82 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

under nature's repose. The distant rumbling of 
the city on the other side of Cedron had died away. 
And now an extraordinary oppression came upon 
the soul of Jesus, to such a degree that he felt the 
need of special assistance from his Father. Taking 
the three disciples whom he usually selected as 
witnesses on special occasions, he led them a little 
distance from the rest, and bade them watch while 
he went a little farther and prayed. He then went 
forward, fell on his face, and cried, " My Father, if 
it be possible, let this cup pass from me : never- 
theless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." But no 
answer is returned ; there is no mitigation of the 
pressure, which increases until his agony is such 
that sweat rolls down his face ; this mental distress 
increases until blood issues through the pores of 
the skin, and, mingling with the sweat, falls to the 
ground. " My soul," he exclaims, " is exceeding 
sorrowful, even unto death." 

Now, what, we ask, was the cause of this extreme 
agony of the Saviour's soul ? 

Some would reply, that it was experienced in 
view of the terrible suffering of the approaching 
crucifixion. But does history speak of another in- 
stance of such suffering in view only of death, 
however terrible in its nature ? Multitudes of his 
followers, we well know, have met death in the 
most fearful forms with composure, and even with 
rejoicing. Are we to suppose that He who could 
support countless numbers of the faithful in suffer- 
ing all kinds of torture and cruel deaths that the 



APPENDIX. 183 

emissaries of Satan could devise, should himself be 
under such mental anguish as to cause the blood to 
ooze from his flesh simply at the prospect of pass- 
ing through the pains of the cross to his native 
home and glory ? Such an idea seems prepos- 
terous. 

Was not this experience of anguish that " bap- 
tism " of which he spoke : " I have a baptism to be 
baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be 
accomplished!" What baptism could he have re- 
ferred to in these words but that terrible scene 
through which he passed in the garden and on the 
cross ? 

Mark his words. " My soul is exceeding sorrow- 
ful, even unto death ; " that is, at the point of death, 
or just ready to die. The bloody sweat shows the 
depth of that agony ; doubtless, had it been a little 
more severe, or of longer continuance, it must have 
caused his death. But just at this point an angel 
came from " heaven strengthening him," lest he 
should sink and die on the spot under the heavy 
burden then pressing upon his soul. 

How wonderful and timely was this interposition ! 
It brings to mind the instance of Abraham, when 
about to offer up Isaac, his son, at the divine com- 
mand. At the moment when his arm was lifted 
for the fatal stroke, an angel appears and stays the 
deed, and the life of his beloved son is spared. So, 
on this occasion, with Jesus ; and who can peruse 
the account without emotions of gratitude to the 
all-wise Ruler of events ? Suppose the angel had 



154 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

not appeared, and that Jesus had there expired. 
We should not, indeed, dare to say that such a 
death of Christ would not have availed for an 
atonement ; but what a chasm there would have 
been in the providential history of Christ's death ; 
how incomplete in many of its very important 
parts ! What would become of those prophecies 
of Scripture, those sacrifices, yea, the very decla- 
rations of Christ himself, which pointed to a dif- 
ferent manner of death ? In that case, too, what 
evidence would have been given as to the cause of 
his death ? whereas, in the actual circumstances of 
it there was, emphatically, such evidence ; as will 
presently be considered. 

And, further, ground would have been given to 
the Jews for their assertion that Jesus was a de- 
ceiver ; they could have said that God had smitten 
him on account of his deception ; and who could 
have answered them ? Furthermore, many proofs 
of his divinity would have been wanting. Nor 
could any of those events have occurred, such as 
his betrayal, arrest, trial, conviction, and execution, 
with the attendant circumstances ; all so full of 
interest, and interwoven, as now they are, in the 
development of the scheme of salvation. Jesus 
himself, having declared the manner of his death, 
and many of the particulars attending it, would 
have been proved a false prophet. All must see 
the vast importance of his being supernaturally 
sustained in his conflict in the garden. 

Now let us look at those circumstances which 



APPENDIX. 185 

were actually and immediately connected with the 
death of our Saviour. Jesus was transfixed to the 
cross at nine o'clock in the morning. From twelve 
o'clock darkness was spread over the earth till 
three in the afternoon. At that momentous and 
memorable hour the pressure upon the soul of Jesus 
was such as to force from his lips that heart-rend- 
ing appeal to his Father, " My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me ? " and commending his 
spirit into the hands of his Father, uttered the 
weighty exclamation, " It is finished," and gave up 
the ghost. 

It will be observed that Jesus had been on the 
cross six hours only when he died. John (Bib. 
Archaeology, p. 325) states that criminals, when 
crucified, commonly live until the third day, and 
sometimes to the seventh. Another writer re- 
marks, " The degree of anguish is gradual in the 
increase. The person would languish gradually 
from excessive pains, exposure, and want of nour- 
ishment ; the vitality of the system gently failing. 
The voice becomes husky, and eventually fails a 
longer or shorter time before life is extinct." 

Compare with this the circumstances of Jesus' 
death. Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that he 
cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 
John says, " When he had received the vinegar, he 
said, It is finished : and he bowed his head, and 
gave up the ghost." As the other evangelists re- 
late that he cried with a loud voice, it is more than 
probable the words " It is finished " were the words 



1 86 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

thus spoken. Two facts unite, then, to show that 
something beside the pains of crucifixion caused 
the death of Jesus. First, that his death was 
premature, taking place in six hours. Second, that 
he had full strength when he gave up the ghost. 
Mark says (xv. 39), " When the centurion, which 
stood over against him, saw that he so cried out and 
gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this was the son 
of God ! " The centurion noted the facts, as being 
uncommon in such executions, and Matthew ob- 
serves, " He and they who were with him feared 
greatly." 

Again : when Joseph sought from Pilate the body 
of Jesus, Pilate " marvelled if he were already 
dead," and refused to deliver up the body until he 
was assured from the centurion that he had been a 
while dead ; which gives additional evidence that 
the death was premature. 

In Christ's time, the Jews had many privileges 
relating especially to their religious services and 
divine law. One was in regard to a criminal Jew 
who had been hanged. Deut. xxi. 23 : " His body 
shall not remain all night upon the tree." In def- 
erence to this law, the Jews, when one of their 
countrymen had been crucified, were allowed to 
hasten death, that the body might be taken down 
before sunset. Among the means used was the 
breaking of the person's bones against the cross 
with an instrument ; first below the elbows and 
knees, and then above them. If this did not suc- 
ceed, the body was pierced with a spear. 



APPENDIX. 187 

The crucifixion of our Lord was on Friday. 
The next day was the Jewish Sabbath, commen- 
cing at sunset, or six o'clock P. M., that same 
day ; and that being the Passover Sabbath, it was, 
as J ohn says, " a high day." 

Towards the latter part of the afternoon (for Je- 
sus died at three o'clock), the Jews applied to the 
governor that the usual means might be used to 
effect the death of the criminals, that the bodies 
might not remain on the cross on their Sabbath. 

The request was granted. The guard, being 
arranged around the criminals, came first to the 
two outer ones, and these being alive, they broke 
their limbs. Then coming to Jesus, in the centre, 
they find him dead. There was no necessity, then, 
that his limbs should be broken ; but to make sure 
of the fact that he was dead, the spearman pierced 
his body ; and there being no action, it was evident 
that he was dead. Thus additional confirmation is 
given of the premature death of Christ. 

Now, looking at all these facts attending the 
death of Jesus, the conclusion seems irresistible 
that his death was not the result of the crucifixion. 

Both Jews and Romans intended his death, and 
did what must eventually have caused it ; but the 
actual executioner seems to have been something 
other than the cross. This agrees with Jesus' 
declaration that no man took his life. 

What, then, did take that life ? True, Jesus 
said, " The Son of Man should be delivered into 
the hands of men, and they should kill him! 1 



1 88 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Peter charges the Jews with having " killed the 
Prince of Life." Virtually, the deed was theirs, 
though the Romans performed the act ; and both 
Jews and Romans believed they had accomplished 
their purpose. 

We have noticed the mental anguish of Christ 
in the garden, when there was no outward cause 
to produce it ; we have also viewed him on the 
cross, under such suffering as to call forth that 
affecting cry, " My God, my God," &c. This ap- 
peal seems to have been a continuation of the 
supplications in Gethsemane, and indicates that 
the suffering on the cross was, in its most essen- 
tial part, of a similar character to that borne in the 
garden. In the one instance the language of the 
sufferer was, " If it be possible let this cup pass 
from me : but not as I will, but as thou wilt ; " and 
as the burden grew insupportable, he was strength- 
ened by a celestial hand. But now, on the cross, 
the cup returns to the Saviour with all the oppres- 
siveness experienced in the garden. 

If a person be under a broken law (not now con- 
sidering by what means he comes into that posi- 
tion, which will be an after consideration), and the 
demand of that law for that violation be death, then 
the person must endure that which involves death. 
The law cannot be fulfilled in anything less. If 
the law be external, recognizing the outward ac- 
tions of men, then the requirement will be external. 
If spiritual, that is, the non-conformity attaching 
to a spiritual law, then the requirement is spiritual, 



APPENDIX. I89 

applying to the inward man. Now, this was pre- 
cisely the case with Jesus. Ke was under both 
this spiritual and external divine demand. To 
fulfil it he must receive mental suffering to such an 
extent as to take animal life. This, we understand, 
was the suffering of Jesus, both in the garden and 
on the cross. In the garden, its intensity was 
sufficiently shown by the strongest word being 
used that the language contains — " being in an 
agony T " Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by ? 
behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto 
my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the 
Lord hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce 
anger." (Lam. i. 12.) His life was saved in the 
garden, but on the cross there could be no such 
salvation. 

To ask now that the cup might be removed 
would be unavailing. No angel may now be sent 
to strengthen him. The hour has come when he 
must drink to the dregs the cup which his Father 
had given him. There can be no mitigation now, 
since for this cause came he to this hour. Even 
his Father must leave him to " tread the wine- 
press alone." Already had he been cast out of the 
church militant, for when the council pronounced 
him "guilty of death," that sentence excluded him 
from the Mosaic church militant. According to 
the precepts of that church, the only visible and 
divinely recognized church then on earth, — it will 
be remembered the Christian church was now in 
embryo, — he at once came into the situation of an 



190 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

outlaw, deemed fit only to be stoned to death, as a 
warning against blasphemy. Nor was this all. No, 
nor was all we have said of his sufferings equal, in 
our view, to what we are now about to state. In 
his present situation, he must not only be cut off 
from membership with the church militant, but as 
a man, he must, for the time being, be cast off by 
the Father from the kingdom of God ! ! For such 
an execution in the kingdom of God would de- 
file it. 

" Never," exclaims the lover of Jesus, " never 
can I admit that the spotless Lamb of God could 
be cast out of God's spiritual kingdom ! " Be not 
startled, dear reader ; remember that whatever Je- 
sus did, and whatever was done to him, while here 
on earth, will redound to his everlasting glory, and 
the highest good of Zion. 

Paul says (Gal. iv. 4, 5), " God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made tender the law, to 
redeem them that are under the law." Now, this 
Son must, in some sense, be in a similar state with 
those whom he came forth to redeem ; and he 
could not be in the same state with them as a 
transgressor, for he never transgressed. Was not 
this that lineal spiritual bondage, which he, in com- 
mon with them, inherited by having been " born 
of a woman." 

Jesus, therefore, was not under the law as a 
transgressor, but by being born of a woman, " born 
under the law ; " and how does this fact bring him 
under the law unless the woman was under the 



APPENDIX. I9I 

law ? and how would this woman be under the law, 
if she had not been born of a woman also under 
the law ? and so on from generation to generation, 
back to the first woman ? and when was the time, 
from Eve down to the birth of Christ, when the 
woman was released from this bondage ? This 
leads us to speak more particularly on the lineal 
descent of bondage; and it must be kept in view 
that it is essentially spiritual bondage of which we 
treat. This state is represented by different terms 
both in Scripture and various writers. It is called 
condemnation, spiritual death, penalty of the law, 
&c. It is a state of the soul indescribable except 
by emblem. We will use the expression " bond- 
age " as virtually including the others. 

By the divine economy, the descent of bondage 
was established in the mother, and not in the fa- 
ther. Why this was so we cannot explain, unless 
in this arrangement there was a view to the future 
Messiah. But so it was. There was no descent 
of bondage from the father. 

The bond father could have a free child of a free 
woman, but a free father could not have a free child 
of a bond woman. This was evidently the div.ne 
order. (See Ex. xxi. 1-4.) And so far as we know, 
this has been the practice of all nations since. 
The owner of the bond woman was the owner of 
her children, whoever might be their father. If a 
wife had a bond maid, and that maid had children, 
the wife had unlimited control over them, above 
that of her husband, even if he was their father. 



I92 _ BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

This seems singular, especially in the patriarchal 
age, when the wife was under such subjection and 
control of the husband, as shown in the case of the 
wife's vow. (See Num. xxx. 6-13, inclusive.) 

The cases of Abraham and Jacob exemplify 
this, especially that of Abraham. The children of 
their bond maids were the children of their free 
wives : they owned them, and could surrender 
them to their husbands, or do what else they 
pleased with them, irrespective of their husbands' 
authority. In Jacob's case, from the tenor of the 
narrative, it is probable Leah and Rachel did not 
use their power contrary to Jacob's will ; or they 
gave those children to him at their birth as their 
own children. But it was not so with Sarah and 
Abraham. She retained her authority over her 
bond maid and her child, even above her husband, 
although he was father of the child. But this son, 
who had been dandled upon the knees of an affec- 
tionate and loving father, at Sarah's command 
must be torn from his bosom, and from a home of 
plenty ; must be sent away, he knew not whither, 
with sustenance only for a few days. And why 
must he be thus abandoned ? Only because he 
was born of a bond woman. Even the pious and 
affectionate father could not protect him from the 
orders of his owner. However unnatural, cruel, 
and unjust this may appear to us, the act was 
approved by God, and the principle afterwards 
recorded in the divine statutes. In the circum- 
stance of Ishmael, we see not only an emblem, 



APPENDIX. 193 

but also an explanation of the peculiar position 
of Jesus in the great plan of the atonement, and 
they teach us how he came into that position. 
According to this economy, — and we must see it 
is God's, and not man ! s, — Eve being in spiritual 
bondage for disobedience, her children must be in 
the same state ; and they could not change their 
condition, however many generations might fol- 
low : therefore, in the Son's coming into the world 
by being born of one of the daughters of Eve, he 
becomes a bond man under the law. This, it will 
be seen, accords with Paul's words, " Made of a 
woman, made under the law." As soon as he is 
born of a woman he becomes one of the family of 
man, a child of Eve, under the law ; and the law 
now requires of him a complete fulfilment, not 
only in all the outward acts of life, but in the in- 
tentions of the heart. This he must do as one of 
the human race. 

Now, had he in any one instance violated the 
law, in thought, word, or deed, it would have been 
ratifying his original parents' transgression, and 
consequently have placed himself precisely in their 
position. He would be, as they were, helpless as 
to making any restitution. But he kept the law, 
not only in outward life, but in spirit. " My meat 
is to do the will of him that sent me/' said the 
blessed Jesus. All this was his duty to do as a 
man ; this purchased nothing ; it only enabled him 
to retain his place in his Father's love. It could 
have no effect on his inherited bondage. He was 
13 



194 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

a bond man still, and his freedom could only be 
obtained by the price of that freedom, and the 
edict determines that price. " In the day thou 
eatest thereof thou sJialt surely die? Now, call 
this announcement what you will, penalty of the 
law, punishment, or whatever else (it is the result 
of transgression and arises from a consciousness 
of being cast off by God, the intensity of the afflic- 
tion being in proportion to the clearness of that 
consciousness, — Jesus did not say, " My God, my 
God, why art thou punishing me ?" but, "Why hast 
thou forsake7i me ? "), it must be of such a nature 
as to cause death ; nothing short of this could 
fulfil that divine announcement ; and there had not 
been a human being on earth, from Adam down to 
the advent of Jesus, who could redeem himself. 
All, having been born under the same edict, had 
lost the power of recovery. Now, let us look at 
the capacity in which Jesus stood, and his adapted- 
ness to meet this emergency. We will look at this 
whole transaction in a business-like view, without 
reference now to the eternal government of the 
All-wise Deity. As a perfect human being, Jesus 
was with his Father before the foundation of the 
world. By and through him his Father performed 
all wonders of creation ; through him the directions 
and the warning were given to his brother-man. 
After the transgression, before the interview in the 
garden, it was understood between him and his 
Father that he should go down and be a descend- 
ant of his brother and his companion Eve, and, as 



APPENDIX. 195 

such, would take upon himself the result of their 
transgression ; thus opening a way for their return 
to his and his Father's affections. But it must be 
left to his brother's volition whether he would re- 
turn or not. He used his own will to go away, 
and be must use it to return. This way for his 
return was preached to him, as some suppose, at 
the first interview after the transgression in the 
garden, in the slaying and sacrificing of animals, 
and in the skins clothing their bodies. Thus was 
emblematized that through the death of the coming 
Messiah, their naked souls could be clothed with 
robes made white by being washed in the blood of 
the Lamb. 

Thus the Creator continues his dealings with 
the descendants of the first mother until the full- 
ness of time had come. And now a body is to be 
prepared for the reception of this Son ; and as it 
was necessary that the animal life and body should 
be holy, he must be begotten by the Holy Ghost: 
thus " that holy thing " that should be born of her 
might truly be called " the Son of God." 

In a word, when on the cross Jesus exclaimed, 
" It is finished," and bowed his head, and gave up 
the ghost, the fulfilment of the law was complete. 
That great event had come to which all sacrifices 
had pointed, from that of Abel down to the last 
paschal lamb that Jesus and his disciples ate in the 
furnished upper room. 

He had now fulfilled the law in all its claims on 
him as a man and descendant of Eve. That soul 



I96 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

and body which were joined in Bethlehem death 
has separated. They had kept the law together, 
but they must be separated on the fulfilment, or 
there is no death ; and if no death, then no fulfil- 
ment of the law. The soul, having always acted 
with his Father, could now soar away with attend- 
ant angels to the celestial Paradise ; as Christ said 
to his companion on the cross, "To-day shalt thou 
be with me in Paradise." The body lies a helpless 
form in Joseph's tomb, naturally as much a subject 
of decay as that of Lazarus. Behold the two then 
thus separated ; the soul in Paradise, the body in 
the tomb. 

Let the reader here observe, just at this point 
comes in the sublime and necessary union of this 
human soul, or son with his Father, in order to 
complete the scheme of redemption. Of himself 
alone he could do nothing, as he said. As a man 
he could no more return to earth and reunite him- 
self to the body than could any other man ; but 
being one with his Father, he had "all power in 
heaven and in earth." He could thus re-enter 
and restore that body to life, after it had lain in 
the tomb until the third day, as easily as he could 
resuscitate Lazarus when he had been dead four 
days. 

On one occasion, speaking to his disciples of his 
death, he says, "They shall crucify him, and the 
third day he shall rise again," implying that in his 
Father he had power to rise. At another time he 
says, " He must be killed, and raised up again the 



APPENDIX. I97 

third day," implying that he would be raised by a 
supernatural power ; and the apostles almost inva- 
riably ascribe his resurrection to God. Here we 
have similar language to that used in reference to 
the creation, where it is said, " God created," and 
again, " Christ created ; " and here, " God raised 
him," and " Christ arose," showing that as they 
were one in the creation, so were they one in the 
resurrection. 

The soul of Christ then returned to the world, 
accompanied by an angel who rolled away the 
stone, and sat upon it. He re-entered the body, 
gave it life, and there in the tomb transformed it 
into a spiritual body. Of course this spiritual body 
could not retain the linen clothes and napkin, any 
more than Elijah's body could retain the mantle 
when that body was transformed to prepare it for 
heaven. In our view, Jesus arose with a spiritual 
body ; at his pleasure he reassumed and laid aside 
the natural body. When the material body was 
assumed, it was in all respects the same as it was 
at the crucifixion, and consequently visible to the 
natural sight. When in a spiritual state it was in- 
visible. This accounts for his marvellous appear- 
ance on several occasions, and as marvellous dis- 
appearance. We see no more difficulty in this view 
concerning the resurrection body of Jesus, than 
that angels were occasionally clothed with assumed 
material bodies. The angel who rolled away the 
stone certainly had a material body, or the women 
and keepers could not have seen him. Those who 



I98 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ate with Abraham surely had material bodies, for 
they were seen, and acted like men ; and could not 
Jesus reassume his former body as easily as to clothe 
these spirit angels with new material bodies ? Now, 
as that body had never been used in transgression, 
and as Jesus had purchased a deliverance from the 
inherited bondage, the soul, by divine power, having 
reinstated and reanimated the body, this with the 
soul now stood free. Body and soul could soar 
away to heaven, and Jesus could sit down at the 
right hand of God where Stephen afterwards be- 
held him. 

Let us now consider what a personage it required 
to fulfil that broken injunction in Eden. 

First, he must be a being under the law. Then 
he must be of the family of man ; for to no other 
race of beings were the directions given. Also, he 
must suffer the penalty announced, or the demand 
would not be fulfilled. Again, it must be one on 
whom the consequence of the offence legally rests. 
Then he must on no occasion have acted contrary 
to the divine will ; one such act would incapacitate 
him for such a position. Further, he must possess 
divine power to return to earth, reanimate the body, 
transform it into a spiritual body, and as one who 
is absolutely a perfectly free person, return to his 
native heaven. Lastly, he must be Deity, for the 
fulfilment of the law must be infinite. 

Where, now, can the personage be found in 
whom all these qualifications are combined ? No- 
where in heaven or earth, save in Jesus of Naza- 



APPENDIX. 199 

reth, the Son of man and the Son of God. " There 
is no name given under heaven among men where- 
by we must be saved " but the name of Jesus. Let 
infinite wisdom and mercy be adored ! Let the 
reader now particularly mark : as this very Son 
who fulfilled the law's demand by suffering on the 
cross was the first human being who ever existed, 
and was so united to or incorporated with his 
Father as to make the two One, so that they were 
together in the creation, in which the forming of 
man was the crowning act, the man on earth was 
thus his creature, or son, as well as his brother. 
He, therefore, was properly the Representative of 
this brother and his posterity. Further, as this 
God-man in his capacity as Creator, divine and 
human Governor, having come under the law by 
" being born of a woman," the demands of that law 
were laid upon him. And who could release him ? 
The law could not be abrogated. " But," says one, 
" the mercy of God surely is sufficient to pardon 
his own Son." Nay, we reply, for in that case he 
must annul the edict made in the garden ; but " not 
one jot or tittle of the law shall fail till all be ful- 
filled." Christ as God and man having met this 
demand, deliverance becomes applicable to all the 
descendants of that erring pair who have never 
voluntarily sinned. For this cause came he into 
the world, not for himself, but " to save the lost." 
No necessity existed of his coming under the pen- 
alty on his own account ; he was happy with his 



200 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Father. Literally he was "made under the law 
that he might redeem those under the law." 

The infant child is indeed born into the. world in 
a state of spiritual bondage, since born of a bond 
mother, as also Jesus came into bondage. But the 
soul of Jesus having come from heaven in union 
with his Father, God being also the Father of his 
body, he could not be an unholy thing, like the 
children of both alienated and bond parents. Noth- 
ing whatever of an evil nature could attach itself to 
Jesus as he himself said, " The prince of this world 
cometh and hath nothing in me." 

Before the infant is conscious of right and wrong, 
if that unhallowed nature should be acted out, this 
does not affect its position : for it insensibly pos- 
sesses that inherited alienation ; consequently it 
comes under the same freedom as those who are in 
bondage only by birth. 

But it must not be forgotten that this freedom is 
the purchase of the Son of God ; the redemption is 
in Him and not in the child. "But," says one, 
"why could not this innocent one fulfil the divine 
requirement as well as the innocent Jesus, who was 
born under the same bondage ? " 

Because with its bondage it inherited from its 
parents an alienated, corrupt nature, which would 
disqualify it from offering a pure sacrifice to God 
— a nature which Jesus did not possess. But ad- 
mitting that the child came into the world as pure 
as the babe of Bethlehem ; if the price of freedom 
should be laid on him as it was on Jesus on the 



APPENDIX. 20 1 

cross, he could indeed in a sense meet it, but it 
would be, so far as the efficacy is concerned, as 
when the murderer by his death fulfils the law of 
his country : the law, indeed, has no further de- 
mand on him, but it leaves him a dead man, with 
no power to return. Besides, the demand would 
be answered for himself only ; and where would be 
the power or authority to purchase freedom for 
others ? 

The sum of our subject is, that all the descend- 
ants of Eve are born in legitimate spiritual bond- 
age and alienation, and as unable to redeem them- 
selves as Ishmael, or any other bond man ; and that 
it requires just such a character and personage as 
the Lord Jesus Christ to effect a Redemption ; and 
that he died on the cross, on Calvary, to consum- 
mate that redemption, in the first place for all such 
descendants of Eve as are born into the world, and 
leave it without voluntary transgression. 

As this redemption was the purchase of Jesus, 
such are under obligation to him for their freedom: 
hence they all will be prepared to heartily unite 
with the celestial choir in singing, " Thou wast 
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 
It may be asked, What proof is there for believing 
that the death of Jesus had such a bearing on the 
salvation of these ? 

In the Mosaic ceremonial law, where Christ is 
represented in so many different capacities and 
relations to the church by different sacrifices and 
emblems, we find (Lev. v. 17-19) a provision for 



202 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

those who transgress unknowingly (and we see they 
were recognized as guilty, although morally they 
could not be so reckoned) ; and they were forgiven, 
or set free, by offering a sacrifice. 

Why this sacrifice, if it did not refer to the great 
Sacrifice on Calvary ? 

Now, as he who transgresses ignorantly cannot 
be reckoned guilty as one who transgresses wilfully, 
it places him on a level with him who never trans- 
gresses, as to personal guilt. In that case the un- 
intentional transgressor and the non-transgressor 
come under the same principle ; and being with all 
others, under the inherited bondage, are made free 
by the purchase of Christ. Thus we see our heav- 
enly Father has made complete provision for all 
those descendants of Eve who never committed 
sin, or who transgressed unknowingly. 

But this does not reach the case of him who 
knowingly and voluntarily sins. All must see that 
even in one such act he places himself virtually in 
the position of the first transgressor ; and if God 
be true, he must be treated accordingly. There is 
no mitigation. There was none for Adam and Eve. 
As soon as they committed the act, they were 
doomed to the consequences. 

The voluntary transgressor by such act takes 
himself out of the position he held in common 
with the unknown transgressor and the innocent, 
and assumes the prerogative to decide for himself 
whether these divine commands shall be obeyed or 
not ; and possessing the inherited alienation to the 



APPENDIX. 203 

divine character and government, he, as well as the 
original Mother and Father, voluntarily renounces 
the will of his Creator, and follows his own, which, 
contrary to the admonitions of his conscience, leads 
him into transgression. 

As to the results of the offence, they may be 
more or less immediate. In fact, we may say the 
consequences of transgression are seldom rightly 
apprehended by the doer until the mind is illumi- 
nated by the Comforter. When the offender 
rightly views the wrong, its nature and the conse- 
quences, he instinctively disapproves of it, and 
regrets that he has been an actor therein. If he is 
sincere and hearty in this contrition that he not 
only acted wrong in disregarding his heavenly 
Father's directions, but that he had a disposition 
so to do, he will condemn himself for having in- 
dulged in such motives. The measure of his con- 
trition will be in proportion to his perception of 
that disposition, the act, and the results. Now, if 
the man is really contrite (it is not material as to 
the degree), it will be seen that he is morally a 
changed man. He disapproves of every feeling 
and act contrary to the divine will. He now 
takes sides with Jesus and his Father. Now he 
is a suitable subject to come under the freedom 
purchased by Christ ; and as those acts of disobe- 
dience were the offspring of that inherited aliena- 
tion, and as the man voluntarily condemns them, 
they also can be reckoned with the nature of the 
man. 



204 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

But could his tears of contrition release him 
from the sentence, " In the day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die " ? " The soul that sinneth 
it shall die." We have seen that he has placed 
himself in the position of the first pair. Could re- 
pentance, however sincere, redeem them from 
under that sentence ? Does the repentance of 
a criminal redeem him from the sentence of the 
law ? 

Thus the man sees himself condemned. He has 
broken the positive command of his almighty 
Creator, and is powerless to make any amends. 
He can use the words of the jailer at Philippi, 
" Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? " Just at this 
point he can hear Jesus saying, " Come unto me, 
all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will 
give you rest." 

As the man has already been a stranger to Jesus, 
he may ask, " Who art thou, that canst give such 
a kind invitation ? " It would be answered, " I am 
Jesus, your Brother. I am one with the eternal 
God. I was one with my Father in creating the 
world, in creating your original father, placing him 
in that beautiful garden, with everything that was 
needful for him and his companion. We gave him 
a volition as a rational and moral being, and we 
knew, if he had the power to use his volition for 
good, he could use it for evil. Hence we threw 
around him all the influence we could, in order to 
induce him to use it for his best good. And to 
further prevent his making a bad use of his privi- 



APPENDIX. 205 

lege, we selected two trees, prominent in the garden. 
We named one the Tree of Life, and the other the 
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We said, 
* Behold these trees ; they are emblems of what 
their names bespeak. There is the Tree of Life. 
So long as you live in fellowship and harmony with 
us, following strictly our directions, you shall eat 
of that tree, for you are heirs of eternal life. The 
other, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is 
also an emblem of what its name would indicate — 
knowledge of good and evil. You know 'good;' 
be content with that, for if you aspire also after 
knowledge of evil, you will surely die, for in your 
purity you cannot know evil without experien- 
cing it. 

" But, notwithstanding all our precautions, your 
first parents were enticed ; they sought the for- 
bidden thing, and obtained the knowledge of evil. 
Of necessity, we could not associate with evil, and 
were compelled to cast them off, and prohibit them 
from further access to the Tree of Life. Thus the 
original pair fell under the sentence announced to 
them in the garden, and only awaited its execution. 
And as all their posterity would be born under the 
same bondage, it was arranged between my Father 
and myself that I should be born of one of their 
children, and inherit thus, with them, their state of 
bondage, that I, a bond man, might legally fulfil 
that sentence in their behalf. ' When the fullness 
of time was come,' my Father sent me, as we had 
mutually agreed. I went forth and met the require- 



206 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ment of the fatal sentence on Calvary. It was 
severe in the extreme, but the severest of all was, 
to be forsaken of my dearest Father. I had not 
till then known the pangs of the soul under the 
consciousness of being forsaken of God. My Father 
could not in any form assist me, nor even sympa- 
thize with me in my then condition. I was now 
fulfilling that sentence of ours, ' Thou shalt surely 
die ; ' and while in that state, He could not only 
show no sympathy, but could not allow me as a 
man to have place in His kingdom. No ; how- 
ever much he loved me,* " he must cast me off; 
for the nature of that kingdom was such that it 
could not admit of an execution within its holy 
province : that would mar its purity. Although 
I never committed an offence, yet having been 
1 made of a woman, made under the law,' I must 
be considered in bondage, in the eye of that law, 
until I had met its demands. In that crisis •, I 
could receive no help nor sympathy from my 
Father. 

" Thus I was left to ' tread the wine-press alone/ 
In me the sentence was fulfilled in its letter and 
its spirit. I was under the effect of that inexorable 
edict whose sentence was death. I died under it ; 
having, as man, no power of help for myself: for 

* Abraham loved his son no less when he stretched forth 
his hand to slay him than at other times. So the Father's 
love for Jesus, his only-begotten son, was no less when He 
was obliged to forsake him than when He was with him in 
the creation. 



APPENDIX. 207 

while the divine sentence was being- executed on 
me as the son of man, of necessity it rendered me 
powerless in regard to myself. But when death 
had ensued, the penalty was accomplished. The 
law was fulfilled. I was as free from bondage as I 
was before I came " under the law " by being " born 
of a woman." I could now exercise the power I 
had of my Father both in heaven and earth. I 
could descend to earth, re-animate and re-enter that 
body, and set all its functions in operation again ; 
could walk about on the earth, could talk and act 
in all respects as before I passed through that 
ordeal on the cross. 

" And now, my much-loved brother-man, I offer 
all to you. You see you have no power to redeem 
yourself. No other being in the universe, besides 
myself, can do this. I invite, I entreat you then, 
brother-man, to accept freedom at a Brother's 
hands. My Father has authorized me to extend 
this invitation to one and all ; and if accepted, to 
bestow the boon of redemption and fellowship with 
US. To accept this must be a voluntary act ; each 
individual must act for himself." 



>!••" > 



.l>\..i£f..^ 







• +-d* A 



r ^ .«T 







v *> 









iV* 



:•• ♦♦*% -.w/ j? \ °m 






».• >°-v v 





**".i^k.\," ' ' VW' • -^ 







*P^J 









> v ..• 



c!&^ 






^ ** **i 






' * <P &, *^ 






» ^ w 









^ .. 






" ..•^.•#.% 









<L *o . » « A 



<> ** 









?..•!!•-+* 






•W w \S s&tok: %s &&' 












v *► <i. v 






P •'••- *> 



^ v 












*.«•- v o '„.' JO' ^ •.,,•' a*' -< 



* ^ 



-•>° * *^- a .^ V 7 ^*^ 


















^°- 



• ' n <*v 













<* *'T7r» ^0' 







A MAR .Ml. # >. ' ' .^ . ^ . w * c 



o. *'<»• 



__ N. MANCHESTER, 

^Se^ INDIANA 46962 









